图像

像历史学家一样阅读

Reading Like a Historian

在中学历史课堂中教授读写能力

Teaching Literacy in Middle and High School History Classrooms

符合共同核心州立标准

ALIGNED WITH COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

像历史学家一样阅读

Reading Like a Historian

在中学历史课堂中教授读写能力

Teaching Literacy in Middle and High School History Classrooms

符合共同核心州立标准

ALIGNED WITH COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

萨姆·温伯格、黛西·马丁和昌西·蒙特-萨诺

Sam Wineburg, Daisy Martin, and Chauncey Monte-Sano

图像



哥伦比亚大学教师学院,

纽约和伦敦

Teachers College

Columbia University

New York and London

由教师学院出版社出版,地址:纽约州纽约市阿姆斯特丹大道1234号,邮编:10027

Published by Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027

版权所有 © 2013 哥伦比亚大学教师学院

Copyright © 2013 by Teachers College, Columbia University

版权所有。未经出版商许可,不得以任何形式或任何方式(包括电子或机械方式,例如复印)或任何信息存储和检索系统复制或传播本出版物的任何部分。

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher.

美国国会图书馆出版物编目数据

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

温伯格,塞缪尔·S.

Wineburg, Samuel S.

像历史学家一样阅读:在中学历史课堂上教授读写能力 / Sam Wineberg、Daisy Martin 和 Chauncey Monte-Sano。

Reading like a historian: teaching literacy in middle and high school history classrooms / Sam Wineberg, Daisy Martin, and Chauncey Monte-Sano.

厘米

p. cm.

“符合共同核心州立标准。”

“Aligned with common core state standards.”

包含参考文献和索引。

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN:978-0-8077-5403-0(pk.)

ISBN: 978-0-8077-5403-0 (pbk.)

1. 阅读(初中)—美国。2. 阅读(高中)—美国。3. 初中教学—美国。4. 高中教学—美国。I. 马丁,黛西,1962年— II. 蒙特-萨诺,昌西。III. 标题。

1. Reading (Middle school)—United States. 2. Reading (Secondary)—United States. 3. Middle school teaching—United States. 4. High school teaching—United States. I. Martin, Daisy, 1962– II. Monte-Sano, Chauncey. III. Title.

LB1632.W565 2012

LB1632.W565 2012

418'.40712—dc23

418’.40712—dc23

2012035684

2012035684

ISBN:978-0-8077-5403-0(纸质)

ISBN: 978-0-8077-5403-0 (paper)

电子书ISBN:978-0-8077-7237-9

e-ISBN: 978-0-8077-7237-9

致瑞秋·洛坦

To Rachel Lotan

感谢她的支持,感谢她的想象力

for her support, for her imagination

内容

Contents

2. “挺身而出”还是“逃离现场”?

2.  “Standing Tall” or Fleeing the Scene?

雅各布·道格拉斯和萨姆·温伯格

Jacob Douglas and Sam Wineburg

介绍

Introduction

加布里埃尔·普罗瑟生于辉煌的1776年,却死于非命。他曾在弗吉尼亚州里士满煽动奴隶起义,但尚未发动便被抓获。1800年10月31日,他的尸体被悬挂在里士满的绞刑架上。

Born in the glorious year of 1776, Gabriel Prosser died an inglorious death. Prosser fomented a slave revolt in Richmond, Virginia, but was apprehended before he could carry it out. On October 31, 1800, his body dangled from Richmond’s gallows.

本杰明·吉特洛生于1891年,曾编辑一份名为《革命时代》的通讯,并著有《左翼宣言》书。1920年2月,吉特洛因“鼓吹推翻政府”而被纽约州以《刑事无政府法》定罪。他向最高法院提起上诉,但败诉了。

Benjamin Gitlow, born in 1891, edited a newsletter called The Revolutionary Age and wrote a book called The Left Wing Manifesto. In February 1920 Gitlow was convicted under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law for “advocating the overthrow of the government.”1 He appealed his case to the Supreme Court. He lost.

除非你对失败的奴隶起义或20世纪20年代的社会主义者有特别的兴趣,否则即使你教历史,你很可能也没听说过加布里埃尔·普罗瑟或本杰明·吉特洛。然而,这两位人物的名字、日期和主题却出现在2006年全国教育进步评估(“国家成绩单”)中,这项测试旨在衡量被认为对所有美国人“至关重要”的历史

Unless you have a special interest in foiled slave revolts or socialists of the 1920s, odds are that you’ve heard of neither Gabriel Prosser nor Benjamin Gitlow—even if you teach history. Yet both figures appear among the names, dates, and themes jammed into the 2006 National Assessment of Educational Progress (“The Nation’s Report Card”), a test designed to measure the history deemed “essential” to all Americans.2

对太多学生来说,历史已经变成了没完没了的普罗瑟和吉特洛的传记。难怪面对“历史思维”这样的词汇,许多人会摸不着头脑,对“历史”和“思维”之间所谓的联系感到困惑。而教师们,面对比洛杉矶电话簿还厚的教学标准文件,也和学生们一样,在努力教授所有这些信息时感到沮丧。

For too many of our students, history has become an endless procession of Prossers and Gitlows. Is it any wonder that faced with a term like “historical thinking,” many scratch their heads, stumped by an alleged connection between “history” and “thinking”? And teachers, staggering under standards documents thicker than the Los Angeles phone book, find themselves as frustrated trying to teach all of this information as their students are trying to retain it.

你手中的这本书提供了一种替代方案,可以打破那种灌输学生事实却让他们很快遗忘的恶性循环。事实对于理解历史至关重要,但只有一种方法能让它们真正扎根于记忆:那就是引导学生思考历史问题,激发他们的好奇心,并让他们热衷于探寻答案。比如,10岁的玛托卡(Matoaka,世人皆知的波卡洪塔斯)真的救了约翰·史密斯船长于危难之中吗?还是这只是史密斯天马行空的想象,一个为了提升其1624年出版的《弗吉尼亚、新英格兰和夏岛通史》(Generall Historie of Virginia, New England & the Summer Isles)销量而编造的耸人听闻的故事(第一章)?亚伯拉罕·林肯是种族主义者吗?这要视情况而定。种族主义是一种不受时间和地点影响的虚无缥缈的特质吗?还是所有历史判断,尤其是道德判断,都会受到环境和传统观念的影响(第三章)?联邦政府的政策是否导致了“沙尘暴”危机?或者,真正的危机是否源于傲慢,源于人类自以为掌握了新技术就能免受自然规律变迁的影响(第六章)?每一个问题都要求我们回到原始资料,构建那些没有简单答案的论证。每一个问题都要求我们罗列事实来论证自己的观点。但是,脱离赋予其意义的问题而孤立地看待事实,就如同一群脖子上挂着AK-47的青少年无法构成一支军队一样,根本无法构成对历史的真正理解。

The book you are holding offers an alternative to the vicious cycle of teaching students facts that will soon evaporate into thin air. Facts are crucial to historical understanding, but there’s only one way for them to take root in memory: Facts are mastered by engaging students in historical questions that spark their curiosity and make them passionate about seeking answers. Did 10-year-old Matoaka, known to the rest of the world as Pocahontas, save Captain John Smith from mortal danger, or was this a figment of Smith’s supple imagination, a spicy tale designed to boost book sales for his 1624 Generall Historie of Virginia, New England & the Summer Isles (Chapter 1)? Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? Depends. Is racism an ethereal quality unaffected by time and place, or are all historical judgments, particularly moral ones, conditioned by circumstance and conventional wisdom (Chapter 3)? Did Federal policy lead to the Dust Bowl crisis? Or was the real crisis caused by arrogance, the belief that armed with new technologies, human beings were immune to the fluctuations of Mother Nature (Chapter 6)? Each question sends us back to the original sources to formulate arguments that admit no easy answer. Each question requires us to marshal facts to argue our case. But facts isolated from the questions that give them meaning no more constitute historical understanding than bands of roving teenagers with AK-47s slung around their necks constitute an army.

在这个“网上搜来的”被当作知识的时代,历史犹如一股清流,有力地制衡着这种知识的匮乏。当一段从德黑兰手机上传的视频在半秒钟内传到旧金山时,历史提醒我们,应该从一些基本问题入手:是谁发的?视频可信吗?Flip 视频遗漏了哪些角度?在博客时代,各种力量都在左右学生的思维。如今的学生被海量信息淹没,他们比以往任何时候都更需要找到理解这些信息的方法。而《像历史学家一样阅读》这本书正是在此发挥作用。

In an age where “I found it on the Internet” masquerades as knowledge, history serves as a vital counter-weight to intellectual sloppiness. When a video uploaded from a cell phone in Tehran reaches San Francisco in half a second, history reminds us to start with basic questions: Who sent it? Can it be trusted? What angle did the Flip video miss? In the era of the blogosphere, there’s no shortage of forces telling students what to think. Today’s students gasp for air beneath mounds of information, and have never been in greater need of ways to make sense of it all. This is where Reading Like a Historian comes in.

乍一看,《像历史学家一样阅读》似乎只是个无关紧要的小插曲,毕竟真正成为职业历史学家的学生寥寥无几。但这恰恰是关键所在。由于高中毕业后继续从事历史研究的学生寥寥无几,因此在初中和高中社会研究课上,让他们学会像历史学家一样阅读至关重要。历史学家们发展出了一套强大的阅读方法,使他们能够发现规律、理解矛盾,并在其他人迷失于细节的海洋中束手无策时,提出合理的解释。历史思维研究者们已经将这些认知方式提炼成可以教授给各个阶段学生的实践方法。我们这里说的并非某种深奥的档案工作方法,而是历史学家们发展出的这些实践方法,可以用来理解各种相互矛盾的声音。每次打开福克斯新闻或MSNBC,我们都会面临这样的挑战。简而言之,《像历史学家一样阅读》培养的技能为公民提供了至关重要的工具。

At first glance, Reading Like a Historian might seem like a frill when so few students actually go on to become professional historians. But that’s precisely the point. Because so few students pursue historical study beyond high school, it is crucial that they learn to read like historians in their middle and high school social studies classes. Historians have developed powerful ways of reading that allow them to see patterns, make sense of contradictions, and formulate reasoned interpretations when others get lost in the forest of detail and throw up their hands in frustration. Researchers of historical thinking have distilled these ways of knowing into practices that can be taught to students at all levels. We’re not talking here about some esoteric procedure for working in an archive. Rather, the practices historians have developed can be used to make sense of the conflicting voices that confront us every time we turn on Fox News or MSNBC. Put simply, the skills cultivated by Reading Like a Historian provide essential tools for citizenship.

想想历史学家和高中生阅读原始文献的方式有何不同。许多学生,甚至包括一些阅读能力很强的学生,都从页面顶部的第一个字开始读,读到最后一个字就结束了。他们很少关注文献末尾的出处,甚至完全忽略。而历史学家则恰恰相反,他们从文献的末尾开始,首先查找出处。他们会快速浏览开头几个字,了解文章大致内容,然后立即跳到文章末尾,仔细查看出处。这份文献是谁写的?什么时候写的?是日记?是通过《信息自由法》获得的备忘录?还是泄露的电子邮件?作者是否掌握第一手资料,还是仅仅基于传闻?甚至在深入研究文献内容之前,历史学家就已经列出了一系列问题,构建了一个思维框架,将后续的细节串联起来。最重要的是,查找出处将阅读从被动接受转变为积极参与、充满热情的探究。对于历史学家来说,阅读不是为了收集枯燥的信息以便在考试中复述,而是为了与历史学家进行生动的对话。

Consider the differences between how historians and high school students approach primary source documents. Many students, even some of our best readers, start with the first word at the top of a page and end their reading with the last. The attribution at the document’s end receives scant attention or is ignored altogether. Historians, on the other hand, begin a document at the end, by sourcing it. They glance at the first couple of words to get their bearings, but then dart immediately to the document’s bottom, zooming in on its attribution. Who wrote this source and when? Is it a diary entry? A memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act? A leaked e-mail? Is the author in a position to know first-hand, or is this account based on hearsay? Even before approaching a document’s substance, historians have formed a list of questions that create a mental framework to hang the details that follow. Most important, sourcing transforms the act of reading from passive reception to an engaged and passionate interrogation. For historians, the act of reading is not about gathering lifeless information to repeat on a test, but engaging a human source in spirited conversation.

再来看看《像历史学家一样阅读》的第二个支柱:语境化——即事件必须置于特定的时空背景下才能被正确理解。面对亚伯拉罕·林肯“无意在白人和黑人之间推行政治和社会平等”(第三章)的言论,许多学生要么难以置信,要么认为他们所学到的关于这位第十六任总统的知识,应该和老师们告诉他们的其他谎言一起扔进垃圾桶。

Consider a second pillar of Reading Like a Historian: the practice of contextualization—the notion that events must be located in place and time to be properly understood. Faced with Abraham Lincoln’s statement that he had “no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races” (Chapter 3), many students shudder in disbelief or conclude that what they’ve been taught about the 16th president belongs in the trash with the other lies their teachers told them.

但历史学家——即使是对内战知之甚少的人——也从不同的角度出发。他们不急于下结论,而是从问题开始。林肯发表这番言论的背景是什么?(当时他正与斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯就一个竞争激烈的参议员席位展开辩论。)这些话是什么时候、在哪里说的?(1858年9月22日,在伊利诺伊州渥太华,一个反黑人情绪高涨的地方。)听众都是些什么样的人?(他们大多支持道格拉斯,对林肯抱有怀疑。)正如语言艺术课上的学生要学习比喻和头韵一样,历史系学生也必须学习如何查找历史文献的出处,以及如何理解历史文献的背景。学生们离开课堂后,每次打开浏览器阅读新闻时,都会用到这些技能。

But historians—even those who know little about the Civil War—start from a different place. Instead of issuing conclusions, they begin with questions. What was the context for Lincoln’s words? (A debate with Stephen A. Douglas for a fiercely contested senatorial seat.) When and where were these words uttered? (On September 22, 1858, in Ottawa, Illinois, a hotbed of anti-Black sentiment.) What kind of people made up the audience? (Those largely supportive of Douglas and suspicious of Lincoln.) Just as students in Language Arts class are taught about similes and alliteration, so history students must be taught to source historical authors and to contextualize historical documents. When they leave our classes, students get to practice these skills every time they open their browsers to read the daily news.

资料来源和语境化是《像历史学家一样阅读》的核心,也是阅读专家所说的领域特定素养的含义。领域特定素养是新版《共同核心州立标准》(CCSS)的基础,本书采用的方法也与此相符。 3《共同核心标准》强调,熟练的阅读和写作需要“理解各学科的规范和惯例”,并敦促教师培养学生在各个领域“评估复杂论证的能力”。 4 这种重点的转变令人欣喜,它摒弃了那种认为批判性思维是一种凌驾于所有知识领域之上的单一概念的错误观念。根据《共同核心标准》的制定者,学校学科不仅仅是信息的堆砌,它们构成了不同的思维方式,每种思维方式都有其构建论证和确立主张的工具。例如,《历史/社会研究阅读素养标准》体现了本书旨在培养的历史思维的各个方面。 (我们将CCSS的这一部分内容放在附录中。我们还在每章末尾的教学场景中列出了各个标准的链接——请查找此处所示的CCSS图标,每个图标旁边都有数字,指示相关的年级段和标准。)通过强调特定领域的读写能力,教师可以帮助学生为大学里将要面临的挑战做好准备。

Sourcing and contextualization are central to Reading Like a Historian and are what reading specialists mean when they refer to domain-specific literacy. Domain-specific literacy is at the foundation of the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and the approach taken here is consistent with that focus.3 The Common Core emphasizes that skilled reading and writing requires “the appreciation of the norms and conventions of each discipline,” and urges teachers to cultivate among students “the capacity to evaluate intricate arguments” in each domain.4 This shift in emphasis is a welcome change from the flawed notion that critical thinking is a single construct soaring high above all domains of knowledge. According to the Common Core’s authors, school subjects are more than masses of information. They constitute distinct ways of thinking, each with its own tools for framing arguments and establishing claims. For example, the Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies reflect aspects of historical thinking that the materials in this book aim to develop. (We include this section of the CCSS in the Appendix. We also identify links to individual standards in the Teaching Scenarios at the end of each chapter—look for the CCSS icon shown here, each icon is accompanied by numbers indicating the relevant grade-band and standard.) By emphasizing aspects of domain-specific literacy, teachers help students prepare for the rigors they’ll face in college.


CCSS

CCSS


例如,探究(inquiry)这个词就让许多学生感到困惑。学生们在各个学科中都会听到这个词,但探究的细微差别却很少得到解释,甚至从未得到解释。在科学课上,学生们会进行探究,通过改变光照和水分对植物生长的影响,并记录多轮实验操作的结果。但历史却不允许这样的实验。过去留给我们的只是零散的碎片,这些碎片往往令人费解,难以辨认其揭示的内容。我们的任务——实际上也是我们唯一的办法——就是将这些碎片拼凑起来,进行一种创造性的探索。即便如此,当涉及到重大问题时——美国革命真的是革命性的吗?大屠杀是德国独有的事件,还是两千年欧洲文明的产物?苏联解体的原因是什么?——我们仍然无法获得确切的答案(只需询问两位不同的历史学家即可)。在数学领域,几何证明无论数学家是在加尔各答还是在卡森城苦苦钻研,都站得住脚,因为数学思维的标志在于它力求超越时空。但在历史领域,时空却是学科推理的指路明灯。正因如此,教育工作者或许会考虑采用其他国家的数学教材,却绝不会考虑将其用于历史教学。探究并非千篇一律。历史探究的过程受制于语境、地点、视角和时代精神。共同核心标准强调了学科知识的这些独特方面,并着重指出学生需要接受相关的明确教育。本书将指导您如何做到这一点。

Consider, for example, a term that confuses many students: inquiry. Students hear the term across subjects, but the nuances of inquiry are rarely if ever explained. In a science class, students engage in inquiries in which they vary amounts of light and water on plant growth, charting the effects of variations in rounds of experimental manipulation. But history allows no such experimentation. The past bequeaths to us scattered fragments that are often maddeningly ambiguous about what they disclose. Our job—in fact, our only recourse—is to piece together fragments in an act of creation. Even then, when it comes to big questions—Was the American Revolution truly revolutionary? Was the Holocaust a uniquely German event, or an outgrowth of 2000 years of European civilization? What caused the dissolution of the Soviet Union?—certainty eludes us (just ask two different historians). In math, a geometrical proof holds up whether the mathematician toiled in Calcutta or in Carson City, as the hallmark of mathematical thinking is its quest to rise above space and time. But in history, space and time are the guiding lights of disciplinary reasoning. This is the reason why educators might consider adopting another nation’s math books but would never entertain doing so for history. Inquiry is not generic. The processes of historical inquiry are bound by context, place, perspective, and zeitgeist. The Common Core underscores these unique aspects of disciplinary knowledge, and emphasizes that students need to be explicitly taught about them. This book shows you how to do so.

我们的每一章都会向您展示如何在课堂上运用《像历史学家一样阅读》的各个方面。我们围绕美国历史上的一个历史问题组织了八个章节,从探索和……开始。本书涵盖了殖民化、詹姆斯敦事件以及古巴导弹危机(见表I.1)。显然,篇幅如此之长的一本书不可能涵盖课程中的所有主题。但我们可以做的是,让您练习运用这种方法来分析关键事件,并提供将这些方法扩展到其他主题的范例。每一章都是独立成篇的。但您也会注意到,我们在开头介绍的核心概念会随着内容的展开而逐步构建。对于许多学生来说,《像历史学家一样阅读》将是一种不同于使用教科书和练习题的学习方式。学生需要反复练习不同主题和历史时期的内容,才能从这种方法中获益匪浅。

Each of our chapters shows you how to apply aspects of Reading Like a Historian in your classroom. We organize each of our eight chapters around a historical question in American history, beginning with Exploration and Colonization and the events at Jamestown and ending with the Cuban Missile Crisis (see Table I.1). Obviously a book of this length can’t cover every topic in the curriculum. But what we can do is give you practice in using this approach with key events and provide you with models for extending these practices to other topics. Each chapter stands on its own. But you will also notice that the core concepts we introduce at the beginning build on one another as we go along. For many students, Reading Like a Historian will be a departure from working with textbooks and worksheets. Students will need repeated practice across topics and time periods to benefit most from this approach.

 

 

表 I.1. 本书概述

Table I.1. Overview of the Book


图像

 

 

每章开头都有一篇导论文章,为后续内容奠定基础。这些文章的目的并非为了提供内容而提供内容,而是为了提供必要的历史背景,以便您向初中和高中学生教授这些主题。我们将研究中使用这些文献资料所获得的见解融入到讨论中。

We begin each chapter with an introductory essay that sets the stage. The goal of these essays is not to supply content for content’s sake, but to give you the historical background necessary for teaching these topics to middle and high school students. We weave into our discussions insights gleaned from using these documents with students in our research studies.

每篇文章后都附有教授该主题所需的全部材料——原始文献、图表、图形组织工具、视觉图像和政治漫画——以及在互联网上查找更多资源的建议。我们不提供固定的教学计划,而是提供灵活运用这些材料的场景。这些场景旨在激发您的想象力,因为没有两个教学情境是完全相同的,您需要根据自己的课堂情况调整这些场景。同样,我们也提供了一些方法,帮助学生将思维过程可视化,以便您更好地了解他们的潜在概念和信念。每章还提供了评估学生对核心历史概念理解程度的方法。评估方法在正文中以粗体显示,并在每个教学场景的页边空白处用图标突出显示,如下图所示。

Following each essay are all the materials you’ll need to teach this topic to your students—primary documents, charts, graphic organizers, visual images, and political cartoons—as well as suggestions for where to find additional resources on the Internet. Rather than providing scripted lesson plans, we lay out flexible scenarios for using these materials in different ways. These scenarios are written to stimulate your imagination, for no two teaching situations are the same and you will need to adapt these scenarios to fit your own classroom. Similarly, we provide ideas for ways to make students’ thinking visible, so that you can better engage their underlying conceptions and beliefs. With each chapter we also provide ideas for assessing students’ understanding of core historical ideas. Assessment ideas appear in bold in the text and are highlighted with an icon in the margin of each teaching scenario, as shown here.

图像

在我们为教师举办的专业发展研讨会上,我们有时会遇到这样一种观点:最初的史料和开放式的历史问题最适合我们成绩优异的学生,而不太适合阅读水平低于年级标准的学生。我们持相反观点。我们认为,需要指导学习如何像历史学家一样阅读的,恰恰是那些阅读有困难的学生。

In our professional development workshops with teachers, we sometimes encounter the view that original sources and open historical questions are best suited to our top students and are less appropriate for students reading below grade level. We hold the opposite position. We believe that it is our struggling readers who most need instruction in learning how to read like a historian.

研究反复表明,青少年读写能力的关键在于让学生接触丰富多样的文本,这些文本应涵盖不同的体裁和风格,“难度各异,主题广泛”。⁵正是那些觉得阅读教科书有困难,且在其他课程中从未接触过相关资料的学生,最需要接触历史问题以及探讨这些问题的文献。当青少年的视野开阔时,他们才能成为流畅的读者。文献记录,包括信件、日记、秘密公报、官方公告、公开演讲等等,为读者呈现了丰富多样的语言风格和质感,拓展了读写能力的边界。我们的学生最需要的正是这种丰富的阅读体验,而不是教科书那寡淡无味的“粥”。

Research has shown over and over that a key to adolescent literacy is exposing students to a rich diet of texts that mix genre and style “at a variety of difficulty levels and on a variety of topics.”5 It is precisely those students who find reading a textbook challenging and have never encountered sources in their other classes who most need to be exposed to historical questions and the documents that address them. Adolescents become fluent readers when their horizons are broadened. The documentary record, a treasury of letters, diaries, secret communiqués, official promulgations, public speeches, and the like, confronts a reader with varied styles and textures of language that push the bounds of literacy. It is this rich diet, not the thin gruel of textbooks, that our students most need.

“等等,”你可能会想,“那些阅读水平低于年级标准或者英语是第二语言的学生,究竟该如何理解那些充斥着生僻词汇和晦涩术语的原始文献呢?” 我们提供了三种应对这一现实问题的策略。

“But wait a second,” you might be thinking. “How in the world are students reading below grade level or for whom English is a second language supposed to deal with primary documents filled with odd terms and obscure vocabulary?” We provide three strategies for dealing with this very real problem.

首先,我们精心挑选并精简了文献,使其直击历史问题的本质。这些文献为学生提供了精读的机会。但请记住,学生能否集中注意力阅读晦涩难懂的文本,与其篇幅成反比。原始文献正是教导学生放慢阅读速度、仔细研读、深入思考用词和言外之意的最佳场所。

First, we’ve selected our documents with precision and trimmed them to the point where they convey the essence of a historical problem. Sources provide students with an opportunity for close reading. But remember, the ability to maintain concentration with a difficult text is inversely proportional to its length. Primary sources are the place to teach students to slow down and read closely, to think deeply about word choice and subtext.

其次,为了更好地集中学生的注意力,我们巧妙地运用省略号修改了文档。对于词汇和短语仍有理解困难的情况,我们在文档底部添加了包含关键释义的词汇表。对于某些资料,我们添加了导读(“注释”),以帮助学生理解后续内容。

Second, to better focus students’ attention, we’ve modified documents with the strategic use of ellipses. In cases where vocabulary and turns of phrases still pose challenges, we include a Word Bank with key definitions at the bottom of the document. For some sources, we include a head note (“Note”) to help orient students to what follows.

第三,如果原始文献的语言对大多数学生来说构成障碍,我们会对原始文​​献进行改编,规范拼写,简化句法,有时还会修改词汇——同时尽可能保留其原有的风格和韵味。对于大多数改编后的文献,我们都附上了原文,或者提供了易于查找的网址。

Third, in cases where the original language of a source poses a barrier to most students, we have adapted primary documents, conventionalizing spelling, simplifying syntax, and occasionally introducing changes in vocabulary—all the while trying to retain as much of their original texture and feel as we can. Alongside most adapted documents we’ve included the original or listed an easy-to-locate web address for finding it.

虽然封面上印着我们三人的名字,但还有许多其他人慷慨地为本书及其理念做出了贡献。雅各布·道格拉斯撰写了第二章的配套文章初稿。杰克·施耐德撰写了第四章和第八章。本书中的理念在1998年至2000年间,通过国家科学基金会资助的“通过历史和科学促进论证”(PATHS)项目在课堂上进行了检验。该项目由华盛顿大学负责实施,合作者包括里德·史蒂文斯、莱斯利·赫伦科尔和菲利普·贝尔。温迪·尤班克是一位荣获华盛顿州“金苹果奖”的教师,她在PATHS项目中发挥了重要作用,我们国家科学基金会的项目官员伊丽莎白·范德普滕也做出了贡献

Although our three names appear on the cover, many others have generously contributed to this book and the ideas it contains. Jacob Douglas wrote the first draft of the essay accompanying Chapter 2. Jack Schneider was the author of Chapters 4 and 8. The ideas in this book were put to the test in classrooms between 1998 and 2000 in a National Science Foundation project, Promoting Argumentation Through History and Science (PATHS), conducted at the University of Washington with colleagues Reed Stevens, Leslie Herrenkohl, and Philip Bell.6 Wendy Ewbank, a Washington State “Golden Apple” Award-winning teacher, played an important role in PATHS, as did our program officer at the National Science Foundation, Elizabeth VanderPutten.

“像历史学家一样阅读”的理念在斯坦福大学蓬勃发展。我们的训练基地是斯坦福教师教育项目(STEP)面向未来历史教师开设的课程。艾比·雷斯曼、布拉德·福戈和埃里克·谢德为这项工作做出了巨大贡献。艾比将这些理念提升到了一个全新的高度,并在旧金山五所高中开展了一项雄心勃勃的实地研究。这项研究表明,“历史学家一样阅读”的理念不仅能帮助学生学习历史思维,还能提高他们的阅读理解能力。多年来,我们一直有幸得到STEP项目勇敢无畏的主任瑞秋·洛坦的坚定支持,她以热情鼓励我们,以不知疲倦的奉献精神激励我们。本书的写作得到了纽约卡内基基金会“新时代教师项目”的资助,在此我们深表感谢。

It was at Stanford that the Reading Like a Historian approach gained momentum. Our training ground was a course for future history teachers in the Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP). Abby Reisman, Brad Fogo, and Eric Shed contributed substantially to this effort. And it was Abby who took these ideas and brought them to an entirely different level in an ambitious field study in five San Francisco high schools. This study showed that the Reading Like a Historian approach not only helps students learn to think historically, but also leads to gains in reading comprehension.7 Over the years we’ve been blessed with the unflagging support of Rachel Lotan, STEP’s intrepid director, who encouraged us with her enthusiasm and inspired us with her tireless dedication. The writing of this book was supported by a grant from the Teachers for a New Era Project of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and that support is gratefully acknowledged.

最后,我们应该阐明一个显而易见的事实:本书并非教科书的替代品,也无意如此。本书的作用在于启发您如何创造性地使用教科书,以及如何弥补其不足。本书中的练习将帮助学生理解,他们的教科书并非像摩西在西奈山上领受的石板那样,是包装精美的。我们希望学生能够正确看待教科书:它只是另一种资料来源,有时有用,有时有缺陷,其内容往往更多地受到教材制定委员会的意愿和当时政治风向的影响,而非任何文献记载。很少有教师能够摆脱州课程的束缚,随心所欲地开展教学。但即便在州标准的限制、50分钟的课时以及无休止的考试制度下,仍然存在着进行有效且富有创意的教学工作的空间。本书正是为此提供了思路。

Finally, we should state what we hope is obvious: This book is no substitute for your textbook, nor does it try to be. What it can do is give you ideas for how to use your textbook creatively and how to compensate for its shortcomings. The exercises in this book will help your students understand that their textbook did not come shrink-wrapped along with the tablets that Moses received on Mount Sinai. We hope that students will come to see their textbook for what it is: another source, sometimes useful, sometimes flawed, often shaped more by the whims of adoption committees and prevailing political winds than anything in the documentary record.8 Few teachers have the liberty to jettison their state curriculum and go off merrily on their own. But even within the constraints of state standards, 50-minute periods, and an endless regimen of testing, there’s room to do good and creative work. This book provides ideas for how to do so.

我们非常希望了解您在使用这种方法方面的反馈和经验。请发送邮件至SHEG@suse.stanford.edu,并务必查看我们网站上的其他资源:历史思维项目 (Historical Thinking Matters Project),http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/,http : //beyondthebubble.stanford.edu,以及​​斯坦福历史教育小组 (Stanford History Education Group) 的主页,http://sheg.stanford.edu

We are very much interested in your feedback and experience in using this approach. Write to us at SHEG@suse.stanford.edu, and be sure to check out the additional resources on our websites: the Historical Thinking Matters Project, http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/, http://beyondthebubble.stanford.edu, and the home page for the Stanford History Education Group, http://sheg.stanford.edu.

 

 


第一章

CHAPTER 1


波卡洪塔斯救了约翰·史密斯吗?

Did Pocahontas Rescue John Smith?

几个世纪以来,波卡洪塔斯一直吸引着我们的想象。她是印第安酋长的女儿,最终嫁给了一位英国船长,也是17世纪伦敦的热门人物。她的事迹被一代又一代人通过诗歌、艺术和故事来纪念。她和约翰·史密斯的故事在我们关于美国起源的叙事中占据着核心地位:她营救史密斯的故事或许是1607年至1608年英国詹姆斯敦殖民地历史上最广为人知的部分。2006年,在据称的营救事件400周年纪念日的前一年,关于波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯的新书充斥着书店。你可以选择为儿童或成人、学者或休闲读者撰写的书籍。但即使过了四个世纪,这些新书对故事的讲述仍然莫衷一是。波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯之间究竟发生了什么?

Pocahontas has captured our imaginations for centuries. Daughter of a great Indian chief, eventual bride of an English captain, and the talk of 17th-century London, she has been memorialized through poetry, art, and storytelling by generations. She and John Smith are lodged at the center of our stories about our country’s origins: Her rescue of Smith may be the best-known part of the history of the original English Jamestown colony of 1607 and 1608. In 2006, a year before the 400th anniversary of the supposed rescue, new volumes about Pocahontas and John Smith filled the bookstores. You could choose from books written for children or adults, scholars, or leisurely readers. But even after 4 centuries, these new books did not agree on the story to be told. What really happened between Pocahontas and John Smith?

华特迪士尼公司制作的版本,是许多学生最熟悉的版本。在1995年的电影中,我们了解到,身材苗条、自由奔放的19岁少女波卡洪塔斯和英俊潇洒的殖民者约翰·史密斯坠入爱河,他们不顾印第安人和殖民者之间禁止接触的禁令。在影片的高潮部分,波卡洪塔斯阻止了她的父亲、部落首领波瓦坦用棍棒将史密斯活活打死。她的勇气和同情心促使双方放下武器,开启了两个曾经交战的文化之间宽容的新时代。这是一个情节紧凑、充满戏剧性、浪漫爱情和道德教训的故事。但是,人、社会及其历史很少如此完美(更不用说如此动人且充满音乐性了)。这场营救真的发生过吗?

The Walt Disney Company is responsible for the version that many of our students know best. In the 1995 movie, we learned that Pocahontas, a svelte, free-spirited 19-year-old, and John Smith, a dashing hunk of a colonist, fell in love, flouting orders that there should be no contact between the Indians and colonists. In the movie’s dramatic climax, Pocahontas prevented Powhatan, her father and chief of the tribe, from cudgeling Smith to death. Her act of courage and compassion led to both sides laying down arms, and ushered in a new era of tolerance between two warring cultures. It is a tidy story, complete with drama, romance, and a moral lesson. But people, societies, and their histories are rarely this tidy (let alone so attractive and musical). Did this rescue really happen?

史学辩论

Historiographical Debate

阅读当代作品,你会发现并没有一个简单的答案。在记者大卫·普莱斯(David Price)的著作《詹姆斯敦的爱与恨:约翰·史密斯、波卡洪塔斯与新国家的心脏》(Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation )中,你会发现正如书名所示,这是一个关于史密斯和波卡洪塔斯的浪漫故事,波卡洪塔斯被这位年长的旅行者所吸引,并救他于危难之中。普莱斯称这次营救(也是其中一章的标题)是“史密斯职业生涯中最著名也最具争议的旅程”,并断言证据表明营救确实发生过。然而,他却将对争议的讨论放在了书的边角处,以免分散读者对主要故事的注意力。历史学家卡米拉·汤森德(Camilla Townsend)的著作《波卡洪塔斯与波瓦坦困境》(Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma)在普莱斯的著作出版一年后问世,书中明确指出营救并未发生3两位作者都认为波卡洪塔斯营救约翰·史密斯的故事存在争议,他们都使用了相同的历史证据来论证自己的观点,但最终却得出了截然相反的结论。我们面临一个历史难题:波卡洪塔斯是否真的救了约翰·史密斯?

Read contemporary works and you will not find a straightforward answer. In journalist David Price’s book, Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation, you will find what the title suggests: a romantic tale of Smith and Pocahontas where she is attracted to the older traveler and saves him from death.1 Price calls the rescue (a title of one chapter) the “most famous and controversial journey of Smith’s career” and asserts that the evidence indicates the rescue did happen.2 He then relegates a discussion of the controversy to the margins of his book so it doesn’t divert the reader from his main story. Historian Camilla Townsend’s book, Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma, published just a year after Price’s, unequivocally states that the rescue did not happen.3 Both authors agree that controversy surrounds the story of Pocahontas’s rescue of John Smith, both use the same historical evidence to make their case, but each comes to opposite conclusions. We have a historical problem: Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith?

图像

西蒙·范·德·帕斯,《波卡洪塔斯》,1616年,版画,6¾ x 4¾英寸,发表于约翰·史密斯的《通史》(Generall Historie),1624年,弗吉尼亚历史学会,网址:http://www.indiana.edu/~wfh/images/pocahontas/pages/aapocengrav1616_jpg.htm

Simon van de Passe, Pocahontas, 1616, engraving, 6¾ x 4¾ in., published in John Smith’s Generall Historie, 1624, Virginia Historical Society, available at http://www.indiana.edu/~wfh/images/pocahontas/pages/aapocengrav1616_jpg.htm

这个救援故事并不新鲜。一代又一代的美国人从小就听过这个故事。那么,我们如何确定它是否真的发生过?如果它的真实性值得商榷,那么这个故事又是从何而来呢?

The story of the rescue is not new. Generations of Americans have grown up hearing it. So how do we know whether it happened? Where did the story come from if its authenticity is debatable?

答案来自约翰·史密斯本人。据称,唯一目睹该事件并留下书面记录的人是史密斯,但他对该事件的描述却漏洞百出。第一份记录写于1608年,也就是据称救援事件发生的年份,但其中并未提及……这段记载没有描述与波瓦坦会面的威胁或营救,而是使用了“友谊”和“仁慈”等词语来形容会面过程(参见资料1.1;所有资料均位于各章末尾)。“他热情地接待了我,说了许多好话,并准备了丰盛的各种食物,向我保证他的友谊,以及四天之内会释放我。” 另一方面,16年后写成的另一份记载则使用了“野蛮”和“可怕”等词语来描述与波瓦坦的会面,也是在这里,我们第一次听到了那句著名的说法:酋长的女儿波卡洪塔斯“用自己的头顶着他的头,救他于危难之中”(参见资料1.2)。⁵这段文字全文如下:

The answer is, from John Smith himself. The only eyewitness to the supposed event who left a paper trail was Smith, but his accounts of the event are riddled with inconsistencies. The first, written in 1608, the year the rescue supposedly occurred, makes no mention of the threat or rescue, and uses words like “friendship” and “kindness” to describe meeting Powhatan (see Source 1.1; all Sources are located at the end of each chapter). “Hee kindly welcomed me with good wordes and great platters of sundrie Victuals, assuring mee his friendship, and my libertie within foure days.”4 On the other hand, another account, written 16 years afterward, uses words like “barbarous” and “fearful” to describe the meeting with Powhatan, and this is where we first hear the famous claim that the chief’s daughter, Pocahontas, “laid her owne [head] upon his to save him from death” (see Source 1.2).5 The entire passage reads:

他们用尽一切野蛮手段款待了他,然后进行了长时间的商议,最终决定将两块巨石搬到波瓦坦面前。于是,所有能抓住他的人都抓住他,把他拖到石头前,把他的头放在石头上,准备用棍棒敲碎他的脑袋。这时,国王最亲爱的女儿波卡洪塔斯见求无果,便用双臂抱住他的头,将自己的头放在他的头上,救他一命。皇帝这才放心,他活了下来。

Having feasted him after their best barbarous manner they could, a long consultation was held, but the conclusion was, two great stones were brought before Powhatan: then, as many as could layd hands on him, dragged him to them, and thereon laid his head, and being ready with their clubs, to beate out his brains, Pocahontas the King’s dearest daughter, when no intreaty could prevaile, got his head in her armes, and laid her owne upon his to save him from death; whereat the Emperour was contented he should live.

为什么其中一篇记述提到了营救事件,而另一篇却没有?史密斯是否害怕,如果印第安女孩救他的真相曝光,他会因此被指责为不够男子气概?在第一篇记述中,他是否只是想描述这片新大陆和陌生的人民,而有意省略了个人经历?在第二篇记述中,他是否利用了波卡洪塔斯在1616年以印第安公主和约翰·罗尔夫妻子的身份前往伦敦后所获得的声望,从而将自己塑造成她早年生活中的人物,尽管她已经去世,无法回应?(波卡洪塔斯于1617年在返回弗吉尼亚的船上死于天花。)他的言辞是否意在将波卡洪塔斯描绘成一个特殊的人物,一个富有同情心、爱好和平的印第安人,她皈依了基督教,与后来成为英国人死敌的其他波瓦坦人截然不同?

Why is the rescue mentioned in one account and not the other? Was Smith scared of being berated as less of a man if the truth about an Indian girl rescuing him came to light? Was he merely trying to describe this new land and unfamiliar peoples in the first account, choosing to omit personal stories? And in the second account, was he capitalizing on Pocahontas’s fame following her 1616 voyage to London as Indian princess and wife of John Rolfe, thus casting himself as a character in her early life now that she was dead and unable to respond? (Pocahontas succumbed to smallpox aboard a ship taking her back to Virginia in 1617.) Were his words designed to represent Pocahontas as exceptional, a sympathetic and peaceful Indian who converted to Christianity and differed radically from the rest of the Powhatan peoples who had become fierce enemies of the British in the intervening years?6

历史学家如何看待史密斯的两份叙述之间的差异?第一个公开质疑约翰·史密斯诚实度的历史学家是亨利·亚当斯,他是约翰·亚当斯总统的曾孙。亨利·亚当斯声称,鉴于史密斯最初的沉默以及两份叙述在语气和细节上的不一致(见资料1.3),任何有思考能力的人都不会相信史密斯的救援故事。7虽然亚当斯的论点合情合理,但他撰写这篇评论的年份——1867年——也颇具深意。后来的历史学家阅读了亚当斯的私人信件,发现他的怀疑带有政治动机:攻击弗吉尼亚州的骄傲——这位在殖民初期残酷岁月中拯救詹姆斯敦的英雄——实际上是对这个在内战中站在错误一方的州的攻击。而这并非史密斯救援故事最后一次被用来传递与事件本身几乎无关的信息。

What do historians make of the contrast between Smith’s two accounts? The first historian to publish an attack on John Smith’s honesty was Henry Adams, great-grandson of President John Adams. Henry Adams claimed that no thinking person could believe the rescue story, given both Smith’s initial silence and the inconsistencies in tone and detail between the two accounts (see Source 1.3).7 While Adams’s argument is reasonable, the year that he penned this critique, 1867, is also telling. Later historians would read Adams’s personal letters and find his skepticism politically motivated: attacking Virginia’s favorite son, a hero responsible for Jamestown’s survival in the early, brutal days of colonization, was in effect a swipe at this state that had been on the wrong side in the Civil War. It would not be the last time that the rescue story was used to send a message that had little to do with the event itself.

然而,亚当斯指出了这一历史问题,后来的历史学家们也一直在试图解决它。历史学家保罗·刘易斯在其著作《伟大的浪子:约翰·史密斯传》中,也认同亚当斯关于营救事件不太可能发生的观点(见资料1.5)。他质疑史料的佐证,并就史密斯在不同叙述中所谓的夸张和矛盾之处提出质疑。刘易斯指出,史密斯的营救故事首次出现时,波卡洪塔斯正成为《伦敦公报》的宠儿,并受到皇室的密切关注。

Nevertheless, Adams surfaced the historical problem and later historians would continue to try to solve it. Historian Paul Lewis, in The Great Rogue: A Biography of John Smith, agreed with Adams about the improbability of a rescue (see Source 1.5).8 He asked questions about corroborating sources and challenged Smith on what he claimed were embellishments and inconsistencies within his separate accounts. Lewis pointed out that Smith’s rescue story first appeared just as Pocahontas was becoming the darling of the London Gazette and basking in royal attention.

其他历史学家虽然相信史密斯的说法,但即便承认此事可能确实发生过,也认为史密斯误解了事件的本质。学者J.A. Leo Lemay在《约翰·史密斯船长的美国梦》一书中指出,史密斯是一位值得信赖的作者,他出于不同的目的撰写了不同的记述:第一篇记述是为了描述新大陆,第二篇记述则是为了推动殖民化(见资料1.4)。 9 Lemay还引用了另一份原始证据来佐证自己的观点:史密斯于1616年写给安妮女王的一封信,信中描述了这次营救行动。Lemay认为,事件的确发生过,但史密斯误解了它的意义:与其说这是一次营救,不如说是一场精心设计的土著仪式。历史学家Philip Barbour对此表示赞同,他认为这实际上是一场象征死亡与重生的美洲原住民仪式,象征着史密斯在波瓦坦酋长的庇护下获得了新的部落身份(见资料1.6)。 10 显然,某件事发生了,但事件的核心人物误解了它的意义。

Other historians took Smith at his word but, even while accepting that this event may have happened, claimed that Smith missed the point. Scholar J. A. Leo Lemay in The American Dream of Captain John Smith argued that Smith was a trustworthy author who wrote different accounts for different purposes: to describe the new land in the first account, to promote colonization of it in the second (see Source 1.4).9 Lemay included another piece of primary evidence to make his case: a letter Smith wrote to Queen Anne in 1616 describing the rescue. Lemay claimed that there was no doubt that the event happened, but that Smith misunderstood its meaning: It was less a rescue than an elaborate native ritual. Historian Philip Barbour agreed, claiming that the event was actually a Native American rite meant to signify death and rebirth, symbolizing Smith’s assumption of a new tribal identity under Powhatan’s patronage (see Source 1.6).10 Something obviously happened, but its import was misunderstood by the actor at its center.

为了全面了解情况,我们需要弄清楚故事的真相究竟什么?这些真相又意味着什么?虽然这些问题没有简单的答案,但提出这些问题正是“像历史学家一样阅读”方法的核心所在。

To take stock, what exactly are the facts of the story? What do these facts mean? While there are no easy answers to these questions, asking them puts us at the heart of the Reading Like a Historian approach.

波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯是美国神话的化身。一位冒险家在400年前的记载中,仅用一个段落就谱写了一段故事,而这位冒险家被同时代的人称为“野心勃勃、不值得尊重、自负虚荣” ¹¹,这段故事至今仍令美国人津津乐道。我们通常从史密斯营救波卡洪塔斯——这位美国最受欢迎的印第安公主——的故事开始讲述她的故事。这一事件展现了她在面对邪恶势力时的勇敢和独立。事实上,我们对这些历史人物以及营救故事的描述本身也成为了值得研究的对象,因为它们反映了他们被创造的历史时代和地域背景。¹²

Pocahontas and John Smith are the stuff of American myth. A single paragraph in a 400-year-old account written by an adventurer whom one contemporary called “ambityous unworthy and vaynglorious”11 spawned a story of which Americans never tire. Our story of Pocahontas, America’s favorite Indian princess, usually starts with Smith’s rescue, an event that shows her bravery and independence when faced with an evil deed. In fact, the representations we have of these historical figures and of the rescue story have become legitimate objects of study themselves, as they reflect the historical time and place in which they were created.12

亨利·亚当斯和迪士尼公司并非唯一利用这个故事为自己谋利的作者。不妨看看约翰·查普曼的画作《波卡洪塔斯在弗吉尼亚州詹姆斯敦的洗礼》,这幅画作于1840年悬挂在国会大厦圆形大厅,比记者约翰·奥沙利文提出“昭昭天命”一词早几年。西进运动势头正盛。这幅画美化了波卡洪塔斯皈依基督教的历程,暗示将基督教带给印第安人是一项现实而崇高的事业(即便如画中所描绘的那样,一些脾气暴躁、心怀不轨的印第安人拒绝了它)。不妨换个角度,看看亚马逊网站上那些以波卡洪塔斯的名字命名的、用钻石和珍珠制成的昂贵珠宝吧。

Henry Adams and the Disney Company are not the only authors to narrate this story to their advantage. Consider John Chapman’s painting, Baptism of Pocahontas at Jamestown, Virginia, hung in the Capitol Rotunda in 1840 a few years before journalist John O’Sullivan coined the term “manifest destiny,” and the work of westward conquest was gaining steam. The painting glorifies Pocahontas’s conversion to Christianity, suggesting that bringing Christianity to the Indians is a realistic and noble endeavor (even if, as depicted in the painting, some surly, bad Indians rejected it). Consider, on a more frivolous note, the costly jewelry made of diamonds and pearls that bears Pocahontas’s name available at Amazon.com.

对波卡洪塔斯及其获救故事的神话化,对于理解和还原历史真相究竟有何意义?人类学家海伦·朗特里和历史学家卡米拉·汤森等学者认为,这种神话化模糊并狭隘了我们对这段历史的认知。 13聚焦于浪漫的印第安公主和英国船长之间引人入胜的形象,掩盖了英国人与波瓦坦人之间更宏大的交往史,以及随着殖民者逐渐将切萨皮克湾地区作为永久家园,这两个族群之间关系的演变。波卡洪塔斯的故事被简化成童话故事,如同简明扼要的史料,导致学生们错失了了解这段历史及其相关族群的重要信息。

And what has the mythologizing of Pocahontas and the rescue story meant for understanding and capturing what really happened? Scholars like anthropologist Helen Rountree and historian Camilla Townsend argue that it has obscured and narrowed our vision of this past.13 Focusing on an appealing picture of a romantic Indian princess and British captain has blotted out larger stories of British/Powhatan encounters and the groups’ evolving relationship as the colonists began to make the Chesapeake their permanent home. Pocahontas’s story, reduced to a fairytale, CliffsNotes form, leads students to miss out on learning significant things about this encounter and the peoples involved in it.

由于我们无法获得波卡洪塔斯的亲口讲述,我们对整个故事仍然知之甚少。事实上,我们所有的书面资料都出自英国人之手,我们根本无法听到波卡洪塔斯族人未经任何中介的叙述。虽然史密斯、威廉·斯特雷奇等人留下了关于切萨皮克印第安人的详尽描述,但他们的记述必然带有作者自身的文化和个人视角。历史学家必须仔细研读这些文字资料。汤森德告诉读者,她从史密斯的记述中提炼出事件的具体细节,“将每一句话置于其写作的语境中,并将其与佐证或否定性的外部证据进行对比”——这本质上是历史学家最擅长的工作:将文本置于特定的语境中,并加以佐证,从而理解文本所揭示的历史真相。14汤森对“英国人所知道的”的明确论述,有力地表明,我们需要了解史密斯的同代人和同胞如何看待和描述印第安人和殖民化,才能理解这一事件和史密斯的竞争性叙述。

The fact that we do not have access to Pocahontas’s words leaves us with a deafening silence about the complete story. In fact, all our written sources were composed by British men, and we have no access to the unmediated voices of Pocahontas’s people. While Smith, William Strachey, and others left lengthy descriptions of the Indians of the Chesapeake, their accounts are necessarily filtered through the authors’ cultural and personal prisms. Historians must read this written evidence closely. Townsend tells her readers that she culled the specifics of the event from reading Smith’s accounts and “placing each statement in the context in which it was written and juxtaposing it against confirming or damning external evidence”—essentially doing what historians do best, contextualizing and corroborating text to understand what it tells us about the past.14 Townsend’s explicit treatment of “what the English knew” firmly establishes that we need to know how Smith’s contemporaries and compatriots viewed and portrayed Indians and colonization to understand this event and Smith’s rival accounts.

同样,了解切萨皮克印第安人的社会——他们的日常生活、仪式和居住环境——有助于我们理解这一事件及其发生的背景。考古学家和人类学家为构建这方面的知识做出了贡献。为了记录波瓦坦酋长国的疆域和发展,以及不同印第安部落和村落之间的关系,E·兰道夫·特纳参考了考古和地理数据,以补充英国的记载。和一些学者分析了出土陶器及其位置之间的差异和一致性,以及铜器和贝壳制品等现存的贸易商品。围绕印第安人定居点的防御性悬崖遗迹也增进了我们对切萨皮克各部落之间关系的了解。这些学者利用现有证据,重构了印第安人对此次遭遇的可能看法。

Similarly, knowing about the Chesapeake Indians’ societies—their routines, rituals, and residences—sheds light on this event and the context in which it occurred. Archeologists and anthropologists have helped in building this knowledge. To document the scope and growth of Powhatan’s chiefdom and relations between different Indian tribes and villages, E. Randolph Turner looked to archeological and geographical data to complement the English accounts.15 He and others analyzed variations and consistencies between unearthed ceramics and their locations, as well as surviving trade goods like copper and sea shell artifacts. Evidence of defensive cliffs surrounding Indian settlements contributes to what we know about how the tribes of the Chesapeake got along. These scholars use the evidence available to them to reconstruct possible Indian perspectives on the encounter.

这在多大程度上弥补了早期殖民活动中那些最受牵连的民族的沉默?目前尚不清楚,但对约翰·史密斯/波卡洪塔斯相遇的世界进行更全面的了解,无疑有助于我们理解哪些是可能的,哪些是不可能的。与此同时,新的信息正在不断涌现。2003年,在弗吉尼亚州格洛斯特县发现了一处遗址,被认定为韦罗沃科莫科村,也就是当年营救事件发生的地点。考古学家们欣喜地发现了比英国人早150多年的沟渠,这一发现表明村落内部存在世俗空间和神圣空间的分离。更薄、更易碎的陶器碎片是神圣空间的标志;学者们推测,这里可能是波瓦坦的住所。考古学家们仍在继续挖掘该遗址,以期获得更多线索,从而更好地了解这个没有留下任何文字记录的民族。

How much does this compensate for the silence of the peoples most embroiled in these early colonization efforts? It’s not clear, but surely a more complete picture of the world of the John Smith/Pocahontas encounter contributes to understanding what is and isn’t likely. Meanwhile, new information is being uncovered. In 2003, a site determined to be Werowocomoco, the village where the rescue would have happened, was discovered in Gloucester County, Virginia. Archeologists thrilled in discovering ditches predating the English by more than 150 years, a find that suggested a separation of secular and sacred spaces within the village. Thinner, more fragile pottery shards distinguish the sacred space; scholars have speculated that it may have been Powhatan’s living quarters.16 Archeologists continue to excavate that site for more clues to understanding this people who left no written record.

首先,学者们已经证明,波瓦坦人并非孤立的部落,而是切萨皮克湾地区庞大部落网络的一部分。由于语言和生活方式的共通,他们属于阿尔冈昆语系印第安人。波瓦坦酋长领导着一个类似于部落联盟的组织。这个联盟覆盖了弗吉尼亚州潮水区超过6000平方英里的区域,在他的领导下发展到30多个部落,人口超过12000人。每个部落都向波瓦坦纳贡,并拥有一位效忠于联盟和波瓦坦的酋长(或称“韦罗万斯”)。各部落可能通过战争、结盟和部落间通婚等方式加入这个联盟。

First, scholars have shown that the Powhatan were not an isolated or loner tribe, but part of an extensive intertribal network on the Chesapeake. Part of the Indian group called the Algonquian by virtue of a shared language and way of life, Chief Powhatan led something akin to a tribal federation. The federation extended more than 6,000 square miles in the Tidewater area of Virginia and grew to more than 30 tribes and 12,000 people under his leadership. Each of these tribes paid tribute to Powhatan and had a chief, or werowance, loyal to the federation and Powhatan. Tribes probably joined the federation through war, alliances, and intertribal marriage.

此外,当英国人抵达詹姆斯敦时,波卡洪塔斯的父亲并非外交或族群间关系领域的新手:他当时已是统领多个族群的强大领袖。汤森称他为“杰出的战略家” ¹⁷,因为他在其领域内外交手腕高明且卓有成效;而巴伯则用“专制”一词来形容他的统治方式¹⁸ 。英国人带着他们外来但实用的工具、大型船只和独特的行事方式,对波瓦坦来说也并非陌生。西班牙人早已到过该地区,并与印第安人发生过冲突:这并非欧洲人第一次踏足这片土地。

Further, Pocahontas’s father was not new to the world of diplomacy or intergroup relations when the English arrived in Jamestown: He was already a powerful leader of diverse groups. Skilled and successful at diplomacy in his world, Townsend calls him “a brilliant strategist”17 while Barbour uses the word “despotism” to describe his governance.18 Nor were the British, with their foreign but useful tools, their big ships and strange ways, new to Powhatan. The Spanish had already been to the region and skirmished with the Indians: This was not the first time Europeans had arrived in their midst.

英国殖民者了解西班牙早期的殖民活动,这影响了他们的计划和策略。当“苏珊·康斯坦特号”“发现号”“神速号”抵达时,船上的乘客就计划在此建立殖民地,事实上,他们也意识到这片区域存在权力真空,并希望填补这一空白。但英国人并未与当地居民达成共识,他们在建立高效自给自足的定居点方面表现不佳,这或许有助于他们掩盖自己只是临时访客的身份。然而,这也导致了如今臭名昭著的“饥荒时期”。在定居点建立的第一个冬天,约翰·史密斯船长开始溯河而上,用工具和珠子换取玉米,以拯救他的同胞免于饥荒。饥饿难耐。在他沿奇卡霍米尼河逆流而上最远的一次行程中,他被波瓦坦的兄弟奥佩坎卡诺俘虏,并被押送到各个村庄。12月下旬,史密斯被带到距离詹姆斯敦12英里的韦罗沃科莫科,觐见波瓦坦。这里是营救故事的发生地,也是波卡洪塔斯故事的开端。

The British colonizers knew of the earlier Spanish efforts, and this influenced their plans and approach. When the Susan Constant, Discovery, and Godspeed arrived, the passengers had designs on colonizing the area, and in fact knew the region as a power vacuum that they hoped to fill. But the British didn’t share this view with the natives, and their ineptness and trouble with creating a productive and self-sustaining settlement may have helped their cover story of being temporary visitors. However, it also led to what is now infamously known as “the starving times,” and in the first winter of the settlement, Captain John Smith started making voyages upriver to trade tools and beads for corn to save his compatriots from starvation. In his furthest trip up the Chickahominy River, he was captured by Opechancanough, Powhatan’s brother, and taken from village to village. In late December Smith was brought before Powhatan at Werowocomoco, 12 miles from Jamestown. This is the site of the rescue story and where the story of Pocahontas begins.

鉴于波卡洪塔斯作为一位具有多重象征意义的人物,我们对她的了解之少令人惊讶。波瓦坦之女,母亲不详,大约九、十岁时,她第一次在村子里见到被俘的约翰·史密斯——据说就是在那时,史密斯获救了。第二年,波卡洪塔斯频繁造访詹姆斯敦。她带来了殖民地所需的物资,史密斯认为她促成了一些印第安人质的安全返回。她为殖民者和印第安人翻译,汤森推测,史密斯记录的唯一一段完整的阿尔冈昆语句子可能就出自她之手。虽然我们不清楚她每次来访的具体目的,但每次似乎都友好而乐于助人。然而,不到一年,她就停止了对殖民地的访问,只有一份记载称她嫁给了一位名叫科库姆的印第安人。

Given her status as icon serving multiple purposes, it is striking how little verifiable knowledge about Pocahontas we actually have. The daughter of Powhatan and an unknown mother was about 9 or 10 years old when she would have first seen the captive John Smith in her village—and when the supposed rescue happened. In the following year, Pocahontas was a frequent visitor to Jamestown. She brought the settlement provisions and was credited by Smith with being responsible for the safe return of some Indian hostages. She translated for the colonists and Indians, and Townsend conjectures that she may be responsible for the sole surviving Algonquian complete sentence recorded by Smith. While the exact nature of her visits is unknown, they seem to be friendly and helpful. However, before the year was up, she stopped visiting the colony and there is a single report that she married an Indian named Kocoom.

直到1613年,她才再次出现在英国的记载中,当时她被一位精明的英国人塞缪尔·阿加尔船长绑架。在此期间,史密斯因火药伤返回英国,印第安人和殖民者之间的敌对行动也愈演愈烈。阿加尔听说波瓦坦的女儿就在他船附近,便抓住机会利用这位印第安公主为英国谋利。一个名叫帕托沃梅克的部落成员帮助将波卡洪塔斯引诱到阿加尔的船上,在那里她被俘虏并被索要赎金。波瓦坦三个月来一直拒绝赎金要求,之后才部分支付。获释后,波卡洪塔斯在詹姆斯敦度过了一段动荡不安的时光,不到一年,她就皈依了基督教,并结识了约翰·罗尔夫,两人结婚。1615年,他们生下了一个儿子,托马斯·罗尔夫。第二年,他们启程返回英国。在那里,波卡洪塔斯被视为印第安公主,并受到詹姆斯一世国王和安妮女王的接见。也是在这一时期,西蒙·范·德·帕斯为她创作了现存唯一一幅肖像画,这幅版画现藏于史密森尼博物馆。1617年春天,波卡洪塔斯一家启程返回弗吉尼亚,但她在离开英国之前便因病去世,年仅19或20岁。

She did not appear again in British accounts until she was kidnapped in 1613 by an enterprising Englishman, Captain Samuel Argall. In the intervening years, Smith had returned to England with a gunpowder injury, and hostilities between the Indians and the colonists had accelerated. Hearing that Powhatan’s daughter was near his ship, Argall seized the opportunity to use the Indian princess to British advantage. A member of a federation tribe, Patowomeck, helped lure Pocahontas aboard Argall’s ship, where she was captured and held for ransom. For 3 months, Powhatan didn’t respond to the ransom demands and then partially met them. Upon her release, Pocahontas stayed in Jamestown, under uncertain conditions, and within a year had converted to Christianity and met and married John Rolfe. In 1615, the two had a son, Thomas Rolfe, and the following year, they set sail for England. There, Pocahontas was regarded as an Indian princess and received at the court of King James I and Queen Anne. This is also when Simon Van de Passe produced the only existing portrait of her, an engraving that now hangs in the Smithsonian. Pocahontas’s family set sail for their return to Virginia in the spring of 1617, but she fell ill and died before they cleared England. She would have been 19 or 20 years old.

如今,波卡洪塔斯是美国民众心中浪漫而又广受欢迎的历史人物,而她获救的故事也塑造了我们对她的认知。然而,我们所熟知的关于这次营救的普遍说法,或许更多的是神话而非史实。历史学家和学者们仍在努力探寻神话背后的真相,力求还原事件的全貌。近几十年来,人们开始更加关注理解和融入与此事件相关的印第安人视角和文化现实。巴伯、勒梅、朗特里和汤森德等学者都对此有所关注,但即便如此,他们对事件的解读仍然存在分歧。疑问依然存在。是否有证据表明波瓦坦部落曾进行过巴伯所提出的那种仪式性的重生?如果我们只关注营救本身,是否会忽略波卡洪塔斯真正的历史意义——她作为一位文化斡旋者,与英国人的交往以及最终与罗尔夫的婚姻,与其说是出于爱情,不如说是出于外交考量?考虑到她在当时的事件中只是一个次要人物,我们对她的关注是否有些误导和夸大?为什么在英国殖民切萨皮克地区的美国历史中,波卡洪塔斯获救的故事会盖过其他一切?如今,我们讲述的关于波卡洪塔斯和她获救的故事已经脱离了任何历史证据,拥有了独立的生命力。海伦·朗特里对波卡洪塔斯的故事又增添了一个新的解读。

Pocahontas is a romantic and popular historical figure for Americans today, and the rescue is what frames our perception of her. However, the common story that we know about this rescue may be more myth than history. Historians and scholars still debate the truth beyond the myth while pursuing an accurate telling of the story. In recent decades, new attention has been paid to understanding and incorporating Indian perspectives and cultural realities relevant to the event. Barbour, Lemay, Rountree, and Townsend—all of these scholars are attentive to this, but even so, they differ in their interpretations of the event. Questions persist. Is there evidence to convince us that Powhatan’s tribe engaged in the kinds of ritual rebirths suggested by Barbour? And if we focus on the rescue, do we miss out on the true historical significance of Pocahontas—as a cultural broker whose interactions with the British, and eventual marriage to Rolfe, were more about diplomacy than affection? Is our focus on her misguided and overblown, given that she was a minor character in the events of the time? How did the rescue story eclipse all else in the American story of the British colonization of the Chesapeake region? At this point, the stories that we tell about Pocahontas and the rescue have taken on a life of their own, separate from any historical evidence. Helen Rountree adds still another twist on what Pocahontas teaches us.

一个年轻女子,她深深扎根于自己的文化之中,却被好战的新来者囚禁,被迫后又自愿地融入他们的文化,最终死于一种神秘的疾病,被埋葬在远离故土的地方,最终被主流社会用作压迫她自己族人的象征。这个故事不仅真实地记录了波卡洪塔斯的经历,也象征着几代原住民的历史。19

The story of a young woman firmly rooted in her own culture, held hostage by bellicose newcomers, forcibly and then willingly assimilated into their culture, killed by a mysterious disease, buried far from her homeland, and ultimately used by the dominant society as a symbol for the oppression of her own people is not only an authentic account of Pocahontas’s experiences but is also emblematic of the histories of generations of Native people.19

关于波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯的文献和学术研究浩如烟海,引人入胜。从巴伯引人入胜的叙述和勒梅细致入微且令人信服的分析,到朗特里的民族历史学方法和蒂尔顿对神话形成过程的详尽描述,这个故事背后的真相值得探究。更重要的是,约翰·史密斯“获救”的故事暴露了历史的薄弱之处,并向我们表明,许多美国人奉为事实的那些事,实际上仅仅依赖于一个(略显可疑的)来源。当我们把这个来源与同一作者的其他文献进行比较时,疑问便会接踵而至。真正的历史在于提出问题,这使得波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯的故事成为引导学生入门历史探究的理想案例。

The literature and scholarship concerning Pocahontas and John Smith are extensive and lively. From Barbour’s compelling story and Lemay’s careful and persuasive analysis to Rountree’s ethnohistorical approach and Tilton’s detailed telling of the making of a myth, the truth behind this story is worth investigating. More important, the story of John Smith’s “rescue” lays bare history’s weak points and shows us that what so many Americans have taken as fact relies, in fact, on a single (somewhat dubious) source. And when we compare this source to other documents from the same author, questions multiply. Genuine history is about asking questions, which makes the Pocahontas/John Smith story the ideal candidate for initiating our students into the art of historical detection.

为什么要教授约翰·史密斯和波卡洪塔斯的故事?

Why Teach About John Smith and Pocahontas?

一个易于处理的历史问题,可以作为课程的开篇。波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯营救事件是一个引人入胜的历史思维教学切入点。虽然关于这一事件的诠释性研究层出不穷,但实际的文献记录却出奇地匮乏。这意味着,只需几节课的时间,你的学生就能接触到引发这场争论的主要史料。通过阅读约翰·史密斯的著作,学生们可以更好地理解这一事件。史密斯的两种截然不同的说法,立刻将学生们推入争议的中心,让他们面对一个难以解决的历史难题。在评估了事件背后的原始文献之后,学生们可以重新审视教科书中的叙述,并以全新的视角看待它:“这件事是否真的发生过都无法确定,他们怎么能如此笃定地写下来呢?!”

A Manageable Historical Problem to Start Your Course. The Pocahontas/John Smith rescue story is a compelling way to start teaching for historical thinking. While there is no shortage of interpretive work that has been done on the event, the actual documentary record is surprisingly thin. Essentially what this means is that over a few class periods, your students can encounter the main sources that fuel this debate. By reading John Smith’s two conflicting accounts, students are immediately thrust into the center of the controversy and confronted with a historical problem that is not easily solved. Having evaluated the primary documents behind this event, students can return to their textbook’s narrative and look at it through new eyes: “How can they write something with such certainty when it’s not even clear that it happened?!”

将历史呈现为一系列待探究的问题,而非一系列需要记忆的故事,对学生而言或许是一种全新的体验。约翰·史密斯/波卡洪塔斯之谜的早期殖民背景意味着,从课程伊始,学生就能以一种不同于以往的方式体验历史。识别并解决一个历史问题,其中包含引导性问题、各种相互矛盾的史料,以及没有唯一正确答案,这挑战了学生对历史是静态的、思考仅仅是记住大量史料的固有观念。尽管波卡洪塔斯是否真的救了约翰·史密斯这个问题在课程范围内看似无关紧要,但其局限性却蕴含着诸多教学优势。学生能够体验历史探究的关键要素,并拥有丰富的历史思考机会,同时又不会被浩瀚的史料所淹没。对于初学者而言,无需查阅大量文献,也能更容易地理解复杂的问题。

History presented as a series of problems to be explored, rather than a set of stories to be committed to memory, may be a new experience for your students. The early colonial setting of the John Smith/Pocahontas problem means that from the beginning of your course, students can encounter history as a different enterprise than what many of them expect. Identifying and working through a historical problem, complete with guiding questions, varied and contradictory sources, and no single right answer challenges students’ ideas that history is static, where the only thinking involved is figuring out how so much material can be memorized. While the narrow question of whether Pocahontas actually rescued John Smith may seem expendable given the curricular terrain, the question’s limited scope offers many instructional advantages. Students experience key facets of historical investigation with rich opportunities to think historically, but they are not overwhelmed by the historical record. Complex questions are easier for novices to grasp without dozens of documents.

原始资料总是“原始的”吗?事实上,探究波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯的故事为培养学生的历史理解能力提供了多种途径。史密斯叙述中的矛盾之处挑战了学生对第一手资料或原始记录的固有观念——即它们永远是理解过去最可靠的来源。学生常常将原始资料奉为历史真相的反映,而忽视了对其进行质疑的必要性。但在这里,原始资料彼此矛盾,而这些矛盾无法通过引用不同作者的不同观点来解决。为什么同一个来源——约翰·史密斯——会有不同的说法?研究二手历史解读能够让学生接触到更复杂的问题,并挑战那种认为原始资料比现代历史学家的解读更有价值这种简单化的观念。过去几个世纪的研究为史密斯对波瓦坦人(可惜的是,他们没有留下任何文字记录)的解读提供了其他解释。

Are Primary Sources Always “Primary”? Indeed, investigating the Pocahontas/John Smith story offers multiple avenues to developing students’ historical understanding. The contrast in Smith’s stories challenges students’ ideas about first-hand or primary accounts—that is, that they are always the most reliable source for understanding the past. Often students privilege primary sources as reflections of historical truth and don’t recognize the need to interrogate them. But here, the primary sources contradict one another, and these contradictions cannot be resolved by appealing to different writers with different perspectives. Why does the same source, John Smith, say different things? Working with the secondary historical interpretations introduces students to more complexity and challenges the simplistic notion that primary sources teach us more than the interpretations of modern-day historians. Scholarship done over the past few centuries provides alternative explanations to Smith’s for what this event may have meant to the Powhatan, who, alas, left no written records of their own.

从已知入手。最后,主题的熟悉度是另一个巨大的优势。几乎没有学生没听说过波卡洪塔斯,或者背不出约翰·史密斯和波卡洪塔斯故事的某个版本。这种熟悉度意味着学生很可能对这个主题和问题感兴趣,并且会惊讶于历史学家们至今仍在争论这个问题。当研究者选择学生已经熟悉的主题时,处理相互矛盾的史料就更容易了。一旦学生意识到他们所听到的故事可能更多的是神话而非历史,关于我们如何了解过去的疑问就有了新的意义。历史不再是枯燥乏味的史实罗列,而是邀请他们参与一场关于证据和论证的热烈辩论。

Starting with the Known. Finally, the topic’s familiarity is another big advantage. It is the rare student who hasn’t heard of Pocahontas or who cannot recite some version of the John Smith/Pocahontas story. This familiarity means that students are likely to be interested in the topic and problem, and be surprised by the fact that historians are still arguing about it. It is easier to work with contradictory sources when they take up a topic that students already know. Once students realize that the story they’ve been told may be more myth than history, questions about how we know the past take on new meaning. Instead of a numbing list of facts, history becomes an invitation to join a raucous debate about evidence and argument.

你会如何使用这些材料?

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一(1-2小时课程):波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯?利用这些资料和工具,引导学生阅读和分析多份记载,并就救援的可能性提出基于证据的论点。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith? Use these sources and tools to engage students in reading and analyzing multiple accounts to create an evidence-based argument about the likelihood of the rescue.


CCSS

#1,#9

CCSS

#1, #9


首先询问学生对波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯的了解。引导学生了解这些人物及其所处时代,以及他们从哪里了解到这些信息。一些学生可能会提到1995年迪士尼出品的电影《风中奇缘》。播放迪士尼版本的营救片段(DVD第25章,或电影大约1分09秒处)。利用时间轴(工具1.1;所有工具均位于章节末尾)以及你之前关于美洲探险和殖民化的相关资料,简要介绍与该事件相关的背景,然后提出本课的引导性问题:波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯?在接下来的几轮中,让学生两人一组,使用相应的文档和练习题来帮助他们回答这个问题。每轮文档使用完毕后,组织全班讨论。在讨论中,再次提及引导性问题,并引导学生用文档中的证据来论证他们的答案。注意倾听学生提出的问题,以此强调历史挖掘往往会引出更多的问题。

Start off by asking students what they know about Pocahontas and John Smith. Elicit what students know about these individuals and their time, and where they learned it. Some will cite the 1995 Disney Pocahontas film. Show the Disney version of the rescue (Chapter 25 of the DVD, or approximately 1:09 into the movie). Use the timeline (Tool 1.1; all Tools are located at the end of chapters) along with any work you have done on the exploration and colonization of the Americas to briefly establish relevant background to the alleged event, then introduce the lesson’s guiding question: Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith? In successive rounds, have pairs of students work with document sets and accompanying worksheets to help them answer this question. After each round of documents, lead a whole-class discussion. In this discussion, revisit the guiding question and prompt students to defend their answers with evidence from the documents. Listen for questions that students have generated to highlight how historical digging often leads to more questions.

图像

在第一轮中,学生们使用史密斯的记述及其配套工具(资料1.11.2工具1.2)。在他们学习的过程中,注意观察学生是否意识到史密斯在两份资料中讲述了截然不同的故事。他们能否找出体现这种差异的词句和细节?在第二轮中,学生们使用两位历史学家的记述及其配套工具(资料1.3、1.4,工具1.3)。同样,注意观察学生是否注意到这些记述之间的差异。在可选的第三轮中,学生们使用最后两位历史学家的记述及其配套工具(资料1.5、1.6,工具1.4 )。在整个课程中,“波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯”这个问题将引导学生的学习和课堂讨论。最后,学生们需要根据所参考的资料,运用证据(例如,直接引语、细节和具体事例)来回答这个问题。支持他们的论点。你可以在布置写作作业之前,先回顾一下迪士尼电影,并让学生探讨历史资料如何挑战这部广为人知的动画版本。使用工具 1.5来组织这项作业。

In the first round, students work with Smith’s accounts and accompanying tools (Sources 1.1 and 1.2, Tool 1.2). As they work, listen to whether students recognize that Smith tells contrasting stories in the two sources. Can they identify phrases and details that exemplify this difference? In the second round, students work with two historians’ accounts and accompanying tools (Source 1.3, 1.4, Tool 1.3). Again, pay attention to whether students note differences between these accounts. In the optional third round, students tackle the final two historians’ accounts and tools (Source 1.5, 1.6, Tool 1.4). Throughout the entire lesson, the question of whether Pocahontas rescued John Smith guides student work and class discussion. Finally, students write an answer to the question with the requirement that they use evidence (e.g., direct quotes, details, and specifics) from the documents to support their argument. You may want to preface the writing assignment by revisiting the Disney movie and asking students to address how the historical sources challenge the well-known animated version of the event. Use Tool 1.5 to structure this assignment.


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 质疑消息来源
  • Questioning sources
  • 综合多个账户
  • Synthesizing multiple accounts

情景二(2-3小时课程)。历史究竟是什么?利用这些资源和工具,向学生明确阐述历史探究的一些核心特征、材料和词汇。

Scenario 2 (2–3 Hour Lesson). What is history anyway? Use these sources and tools to make explicit for your students some core features, materials, and vocabulary of historical investigation.


CCSS

#9

CCSS

#9


参照情景一,开始在课程中融入关于历史本质的直接教学。这种补充教学最好在学生完成文献分析环节之后、撰写最终论文之前进行,当然也可以在每个步骤之后进行。

Replicating Scenario 1, begin to integrate direct instruction about the nature of history into your lessons. This additional instruction works best after students have completed the document analysis rounds but before they write their final essay, although it may be integrated after each step.

您可以向学生讲解文献集1和文献集2的区别,即二手文献和一手文献。您可以解释“文献”、“证据”和“解释”的定义。您可以回顾学生如何深入理解本课的指导性问题,包括阅读、分析和综合多种叙述;用证据支持论点;以及向文献和自身提出问题,以明确他们还想知道什么或他们确实不知道什么。指出历史学家会探究发生了什么以及这件事的意义。并帮助学生认识到,历史研究是一个循环往复的过程,需要不断地用现有证据检验各种说法,而且并非总能找到绝对的答案。

You might teach your students about the difference between Document Sets 1 and 2, i.e., secondary and primary sources. You could define “source,” “evidence,” and “interpretation.” You can review the students’ process of getting smarter about this lesson’s guiding question, which included reading, analyzing, and synthesizing the multiple accounts; backing up assertions with evidence; and asking questions of the sources and of themselves to pinpoint what else they would like to know or what they indeed don’t know. Point out that historians ask questions about what happened and what it meant. And help students recognize that historical investigation is a recursive process, where one has to continually check claims against the available evidence, and absolute answers are not always possible.

图像

为了检验学生的理解程度,他们可以像情景 1 中那样用书面形式回答问题。或者,他们也可以回答以下问题:为什么我们不能确定波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯?请至少写下三个原因。

To check for understanding, students can answer the question in writing as they do in Scenario 1. Alternatively, they can address the following question: Why can’t we know for certain whether Pocahontas rescued John Smith? Write down a minimum of three reasons.

  • 针对每个理由,至少写出两个具体细节或引语来支持该理由。
  • For each reason write at least two specific details or quotes that support that reason.
  • 至少在两处使用不同的信息来源来论证你的观点。
  • Compare sources to make your point in at least two instances.

学生的回答可以采用段落、文章、访谈节目或图表等多种形式。这个问题旨在引导学生思考“做历史”的意义,以及历史文本在历史诠释中的作用。

Students’ responses could take the form of a paragraph, essay, talk show interview, or graphic organizer, among other possibilities. This question prompts students to think about what it means to “do” history and the role of historical texts in developing historical interpretations.


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 质疑消息来源
  • Questioning sources
  • 综合多个账户
  • Synthesizing multiple accounts
  • 构建历史学科特有的词汇
  • Building vocabulary specific to the historical discipline
  • 探究历史知识是如何产生的
  • Identifying how historical knowledge is produced

情景三(2-3小时课程):神话还是历史,二者有何区别?运用这些资料和工具,明确阐述重构历史的证据本质,以及这与神话创造之间的区别。

Scenario 3 (2–3 Hour Lesson). Myth or history, what’s the difference? Use these sources and tools to make explicit the evidentiary nature of reconstructing the past and how this contrasts with myth-making.


CCSS

11–12 #7

CCSS

11–12 #7


学生们参与情景一中描述的阅读和讨论环节,体验历史学家如何分析和综合多种史料以构建连贯的论点。然而,在这个情景中,学生们随后将分析神话的构建实例,包括迪士尼电影和约翰·查普曼于1840年创作的、悬挂在国会大厦圆形大厅的波卡洪塔斯画像。

Students participate in the reading and discussion rounds described in Scenario 1, experiencing how historians must analyze and synthesize multiple accounts to create coherent arguments. However, in this scenario, students subsequently analyze examples of myth-making, including the Disney movie and John Chapman’s 1840 painting of Pocahontas that hangs in the Capitol Rotunda.

仔细观察每一件艺术作品后,学生们思考以下问题:作品中使用了哪些符号?这幅波卡洪塔斯的画像蕴含了哪些更深层次的信息(既包括对当时的观众,也包括对当今观众的)?这幅波卡洪塔斯的画像在创作之初和今天分别具有哪些用途?在全班活动中,指导学生制作一张图表,比较历史与神话。可以参考大卫·洛文塔尔的文章《构建遗产》(Fabricating Heritage),以帮助他们思考这种比较的图表形式。20

After looking carefully at each artistic piece, students consider the questions: What symbols are used? What larger messages (both to its contemporary audience and present-day audience) are embedded in this representation of Pocahontas? What purposes does this representation of Pocahontas serve (both at the time of its creation and present day)? In a whole-class activity, guide students in making a chart comparing history to myth. See David Lowenthal’s essay “Fabricating Heritage” for help in considering what this comparison might look like.20

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 区分神话与历史
  • Distinguishing between myth and history
  • 对纪念碑和公共历史的深入分析
  • Close analysis of memorials and public history

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源1.1:“真实关系” (改编

SOURCE 1.1: “TRUE RELATION” (ADAPTED)


注:以下是约翰·史密斯对所发生事件的亲述。

Note: These are John Smith’s own words about what happened.

到达韦罗沃科莫科时,他们的皇帝骄傲地躺在一张一英尺高的床上,床上铺着十到十二张草席……他神情庄严威严,令我钦佩不已……

Arriving at Werowocomoco, their emperor proudly lying upon a bedstead a foot high upon ten or twelve mats … with such grave and majestical countenance, as drove me into admiration….

他热情地接待了我,说了许多好话,还准备了丰盛的各式食物并向我保证他会与我交好,四天之内就会释放我……他问我们此行的目的……又追问我们为何要乘船继续前行……他答应会给我们提供食物,斧头和铜器则由我们来制作,并且保证不会有人打扰我们。我答应了他的请求。就这样,他使尽浑身解数,竭力安抚我,然后送我回家了。

He kindly welcomed me with good words and great platters of sundry victuals, assuring me his friendship, and my liberty within four days…. He asked me the cause of our coming … demanded why we went further with our boat…. He promised to give me what I wanted to feed us, hatchets and copper we should make him, and none should disturb us. This request I promised to perform. And thus having all the kindness he could devise, sought to content me, he sent me home.


来源:摘自约翰·史密斯(1608 年)所著《弗吉尼亚殖民地建立以来发生的重大事件和事故的真实记述》,载于 L.G. 加德纳编《早期弗吉尼亚叙事集,1606-1625 年》(纽约:查尔斯·斯克里布纳之子出版社,1907 年),第 48、50 页。

Source: Excerpt adapted from John Smith (1608), A true relation of such occurrences and accidents of note as hath happened in Virginia since the first planting of that colony. In Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606–1625, ed. L. G. Gardiner (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 48, 50.

在线影印版可在www.americanjourneys.org/aj-074/获取。

Online facsimile edition available at www.americanjourneys.org/aj-074/


词库

WORD BANK


皇帝——统治者,国王

emperor—ruler, king

面容——脸

countenance—face

食物

victuals—foods


(原来的)

(Original)

抵达韦拉莫科莫科时,他们的皇帝骄傲地躺在一张一英尺高的床架上,床架下垫着十几张垫子……他神情庄严威严,令我肃然起敬……他热情地欢迎我,说了许多好话,并端来满满几盘各式各样的食物,向我保证他会与我交好,并承诺四天之内释放我……他问我此行的目的……又问我们为何要乘船继续前行……

Arriving at Weramocomoco, their emperour proudly lying uppon a Bedstead a foote high upon tenne or twelve Mattes … with such a grave and majesticall countenance, as drave me into admiration…. hee kindly welcomed me with good wordes, and great Platters of sundrie victuals, assuring mee his friendship, and my libertie within foure days…. Hee asked mee the cause of our comming … demaunded why we went further with our Boate….

他答应给我玉米、鹿肉,或者任何我想喂饱我们的食物:斧头和铜器我们得给他做,而且谁也别来打扰我们。我答应了他的请求:就这样,他用尽一切办法让我满意,然后送我回家了……

… Hee promised to give me Corne, Venison, or what I wanted to feede us: Hatchets and Copper wee should make him, and none should disturbe us. This request I promised to performe: and thus, having with all the kindnes hee could devise, sought to content me, hee sent me home….

 

 

资料来源1.2:“通史” (改编

SOURCE 1.2: “GENERAL HISTORY” (ADAPTED)


注:以下是约翰·史密斯在后来的经历中对所发生的事情的描述。

Note: These are John Smith’s words about what happened from a later version of his experiences.

最后,他们把史密斯带到了梅罗诺科莫科,那里是他们的皇帝波瓦坦的所在地。史密斯一进门,所有人都欢呼雀跃……他们用最野蛮的方式款待了他,然后进行了长时间的商议。最终的结果是,他们搬来两块巨石在波瓦坦面前。然后,所有能抓住他的人都把他拖到石头前,把他的头放在石头上,并准备好用棍棒击碎他的脑袋。国王最宠爱的女儿波卡洪塔斯见,便用双臂抱住他的头,用自己的头盖住他的头,救他一命;皇帝这才同意让史密斯活下来。

At last they brought [Smith] to Meronocomoco, where was Powhatan their Emperor. At his entrance, all the people gave a great shout … and … having feasted him after their best barbarous manner they could, a long consultation was held. But the conclusion was, two great stones were brought before Powhatan. Then, as many as could laid hands upon him, dragged him to them, and thereon laid his head, and being ready with their clubs, to beat out his brains. Pocahontas, the King’s dearest daughter, when no entreaty could prevail, got his head in her arms, and laid down her own upon his to save him from death; whereat the Emperor was contented Smith should live.

两天后,波瓦坦把自己装扮得极其可怕,让人把史密斯船长带到树林里的一座大房子里,让他独自一人坐在火堆旁的垫子上……然后,波瓦坦,与其说像人,不如说更像个魔鬼,来到他面前,告诉他他们是朋友,他很快就会去詹姆斯敦给他送两门大炮和一块磨石,为此他将永远他如子……

Two days after, Powhatan having disguised himself in the most fearful manner he could, caused Captain Smith to be brought forth to a great house in the woods, and there upon a mat by the fire to be left alone … then, Powhatan, more like a devil than a man, came unto him and told him how they were friends, and presently he should go to Jamestown, to send him two great guns, and a grindstone, for which he would forever esteem him as a son….


来源:摘自约翰·史密斯 (1624) 所著《弗吉尼亚、新英格兰和夏岛通史》。载于《约翰·史密斯船长全集 (1580–1631)》第 2 卷,PL Barbour 编辑(教堂山:北卡罗来纳大学出版社,1986 年),第 151 页。

Source: Excerpt adapted from John Smith (1624), General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles. In The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580–1631), Vol. 2, ed., P. L. Barbour (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 151.

也可在线访问:http://www.virtualjamestown.org/firsthand.html

Also available online at http://www.virtualjamestown.org/firsthand.html


词库

WORD BANK


咨询——讨论

consultation—discussion

恳求——请求、哀求

entreaty—request, plea

胜利——成功

prevail—succeed

尊重——重视、敬重

esteem—value, respect


(原来的)

(Original)

最后,他们把他带到了梅罗诺科莫科,那里是他们的皇帝波瓦坦的所在地……当他觐见国王时,所有人都发出了热烈的欢呼……他们用尽一切野蛮的方式款待了他,然后进行了长时间的商议,最终决定在波瓦坦面前搬来两块巨石:然后,所有能抓住他的人都把他拖到石头前,把他的头放在石头上,准备用棍棒击碎他的脑袋。国王最亲爱的女儿波卡洪塔斯见求无果,便用双臂抱住他的头,用自己的头盖住他的头,救他一命;皇帝这才放心,他活了下来……

At last they brought him to Meronocomoco, where was Powhatan their Emperor…. At his entrance before the King, all the people gave a great shout … and … having feasted him after their best barbarous manner they could, a long consultation was held, but the conclusion was, two great stones were brought before Powhatan: then, as many as could layd hands on him, dragged him to them, and thereon laid his head, and being ready with their clubs, to beate out his braines, Pocahontas, the Kings dearest daughter, when no intreaty could prevaile, got his head in her armes, and laid her owne upon his to save him from death; whereat the Emperour was contented he should live….

两天后,波瓦坦把自己装扮得极其可怕,让人把史密斯上尉带到树林里的一座大房子里,让他独自一人坐在火堆旁的垫子上……然后,波瓦坦,与其说像人,不如说更像个魔鬼……走到他面前,告诉他现在他们是朋友了,他马上要去詹姆斯敦给他送两门大炮和一块磨石,作为回报,他将……永远视他为自己的儿子……

Two dayes after, Powhatan having disguised himselfe in the most fearefullest manner he could, caused Captaine Smith to be brought forth to a great house in the woods, and there upon a mat by the fire to be left alone … then Powhatan more like a devill then a man … came unto him and told him now they were friends, and presently he should goe to James towne, to send him two great gunnes, and a gryndstone, for which he would … for ever esteeme him as his sonne….

 

 

资料来源1.3:“亚当斯的诠释” (改编

SOURCE 1.3: “ADAMS’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)


注:以下是一位历史学家对约翰·史密斯的两份记载的解读。

Note: Here is how one historian interprets John Smith’s two accounts.

约翰·史密斯的两个截然不同的版本内容并不一致。后出版的《弗吉尼亚通史》夸大了《真实记述》中的许多细节,并提出了史密斯在两书出版的16年间从未提及的新信息。

John Smith’s two completely different versions don’t match up. The later one, A General History of Virginia, exaggerates a lot of details in A True Relation, and brings up new information Smith never mentioned in the 16 years between the publication of the two.

在《真实记述》中,史密斯描述了他被俘期间(1607-1608 年冬季)的经历,称波瓦坦仁慈慷慨,并表示他当时并未感到生命受到威胁。(这证明史密斯认为怀疑波瓦坦的善意是错误的。)此外,史密斯在《真实记述》中从未提及波卡洪塔斯。因此,任何有思考能力的人都不会相信他的说法。

When Smith describes his captivity (winter of 1607–1608) in A True Relation, he says Powhatan was kind and generous. He says he found no cause to fear for his life. (This proves Smith thought it was wrong to doubt Powhatan’s goodwill.) Plus, Smith never mentioned Pocahontas in A True Relation. Therefore, a thinking person can’t believe it.

《真实记述》中提到波卡洪塔斯于1608年晚些时候来到詹姆斯敦。史密斯说他送给她礼物以感谢她父亲的恩情。如果她真的救过他的命,他难道不应该感谢她吗?

A True Relation mentions Pocahontas coming to Jamestown later in 1608. Smith says he gave her gifts in return for her father’s kindness. Wouldn’t he have been thanking her for saving his life (if it happened)?

最后,史密斯在1612年(《弗吉尼亚地图》中)写道,在他被俘期间,他目睹了该部落的一种处决方式。他描述道,囚犯的头颅被放在一块祭祀石上,“然后有人用棍棒击碎他们的脑浆”。奇怪的是,他在这里没有提及自己的经历,因为这听起来和他自己的遭遇如出一辙。

Finally, Smith wrote in 1612 (in A Map of Virginia) that while he was in captivity he witnessed a method of execution practiced by the tribe. He describes a prisoner’s head being placed on a sacrificing stone, while “one with clubs beats out their brains.” Isn’t it rather odd that he didn’t mention his own experience here, since it sounds just like what happened to him?


来源:摘要改编自亨利·亚当斯(1867 年 1 月)的文章“约翰·史密斯船长”,《北美评论》104(214)。

Source: Summary adapted from Henry Adams (1867, January), “Captain John Smith,” The North American Review 104 (214).

 

 

资料来源1.4:勒梅诠释” (改编

SOURCE 1.4: “LEMAYS INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)


注:以下是另一位历史学家对约翰·史密斯记载的解读。

Note: Here is how another historian interprets John Smith’s accounts.

约翰·史密斯没有理由撒谎。在他所有关于土著风俗和地理的著作中,他都非常准确且观察细致。在他被俘后的250年里,没有人质疑过他的说法。

John Smith had no reason to lie. In all of his other writing about native customs and geography, he is very accurate and observant. For 250 years after his captivity, no one questioned his story.

这两个版本之所以不同,是因为它们的目的不同。在《真实记述》中,史密斯并不想炫耀自己的冒险经历;他只想让读者了解弗吉尼亚的土地和人民。而在《弗吉尼亚通史》中,他的目标是促进弗吉尼亚的殖民化(并希望通过添加一些故事来激发人们对弗吉尼亚公司活动的兴趣)。

The reason the two versions differ is that their purpose is different. In A True Relation, Smith didn’t want to brag about his adventures; he wanted to inform readers about the land and people of Virginia. In the General History, his goal was to promote colonization in Virginia (and added stories might get people interested in the activities of the Virginia Company).

对于那些批评史密斯直到1624年才提及波卡洪塔斯的英勇事迹——那时她的名声已经提升了他的地位——的批评者们,其实早在波卡洪塔斯来到英国之前,史密斯就曾写过关于她的事迹。1616年,史密斯写信给安妮女王,讲述了波卡洪塔斯的英勇和其他非凡品质,并描述了波卡洪塔斯如何将他从波瓦坦手中救出,以及她如何拯救了整个詹姆斯敦免于饥荒。

And to those critics who say Smith never mentioned Pocahontas’s bravery until 1624—after some of her fame would enhance his status—he did write about her before she came to England. In 1616, Smith wrote to Queen Anne to tell her of Pocahontas’s bravery and other rare qualities, and he described how Pocahontas rescued him from Powhatan, and how she saved all Jamestown from starvation.

这件事确实发生过,这一点毋庸置疑。史密斯可能误解了整件事的意义。我认为这很可能是一种仪式性的死亡与重生,波卡洪塔斯扮演了他融入印第安人身份的引路人的角色。

There is no doubt that the event happened. Smith may have misinterpreted what the whole thing meant. I think it was probably a ritualistic death and rebirth, with Pocahontas acting as his sponsor into Indian identity.


资料来源:摘要改编自 JA Leo Lemay,《约翰·史密斯船长的美国梦》(夏洛茨维尔:弗吉尼亚大学出版社,1991 年)。

Source: Summary adapted from J. A. Leo Lemay, The American Dream of Captain John Smith (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991).


词库

WORD BANK


殖民化——定居、统治

colonization—settlement, domination

误解——误会,产生了错误的想法

misinterpreted—misunderstood, got the wrong idea about


资料来源1.5:“刘易斯的解释”(改编

SOURCE 1.5: “LEWIS’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)


注:以下是另一位历史学家对这些事件的解读。

Note: Here is how another historian interprets these events.

为什么弗吉尼亚公司其他留有日记的成员中,没有一个人写到波卡洪塔斯救了史密斯的命?(1608年,弗吉尼亚公司有十位成员留有日记。)如果史密斯回到詹姆斯敦并讲述了他的故事,肯定会有人写下来的。

Why is it that none of the other members of the Virginia Company who kept diaries ever wrote about Pocahontas saving Smith’s life? (Ten fellow Virginia company members kept journals in 1608.) Surely someone would have written about it if Smith came back to Jamestown and shared his story.

因此,直到1617年,她才在英国引起轰动,成为伦敦的一大媒体事件。她是一位“公主”(波瓦坦国王的女儿),也是第一位访问英国的印度女性。由于她皈依了基督教,教会高层以及国王(詹姆斯一世)和王后(安妮)都对她格外关注。

Thus, no one in England had ever heard of her until 1617 when she was a big media event in London. She was a “princess” (daughter of “King” Powhatan), and the first Indian woman to visit England. Because she had converted to Christianity, people high up in the church, as well as the King (James I) and Queen (Anne), paid attention to her.

与此同时,约翰·史密斯出版了新版的《真实记述》,其中关于他被捕的部分增加了脚注。这些脚注提到,波卡洪塔斯扑向史密斯,恳求他释放自己,而她的父亲最终答应了她的请求。史密斯甚至还声称,是他把波卡洪塔斯介绍给了英语和《圣经》。

While all this was going on, John Smith published a new edition of A True Relation that now had footnotes in the part about his capture. These notes mention Pocahontas throwing herself on Smith to beg his release, and her father giving in to her request. Smith even goes on to take credit for introducing Pocahontas to the English language and the Bible.

1624年,史密斯在他的《通史》中对这个故事进行了润色。这个版本扩展了他获救的细节,说波卡洪塔斯冒着生命危险救了他。他还描述了波瓦坦酋长为詹姆斯敦殖民者提供印第安向导的情况。这位曾经想要杀死史密斯的酋长,如今会出手相助吗?

In 1624, Smith polished this story in his General History. This version expands the details of his rescue, saying Pocahontas risked her life to save his. He also describes Chief Powhatan providing the Jamestown colonists with Indian guides. Would the same chief who wanted to kill Smith now try to help him?


资料来源:摘要改编自保罗·刘易斯所著《伟大的流氓:约翰·史密斯传》(纽约:大卫·麦凯公司,1966 年)。

Source: Summary adapted from Paul Lewis, The Great Rogue: A Biography of John Smith (New York: David McKay Company, 1966).

 

 

资料来源1.6:“巴伯的解释” (改编

SOURCE 1.6: “BARBOUR’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)


注:以下是另一位学者对这一争议事件的解读。

Note: Here is how another scholar interprets the disputed event.

两块巨石被搬来,强迫约翰·史密斯躺在上面,史密斯感觉自己仿佛要被处决了。这时,一个名叫波卡洪塔斯的年轻女孩跪下来,把头放在史密斯的头上,他才得以解脱。在他看来,是她救了他的命。

The bringing in of two big stones, and forcing John Smith to stretch out on them, seemed to Smith like he was about to be executed. When a young girl (Pocahontas) knelt and placed her head on Smith, he was released. The way he saw it, she saved his life.

几乎可以肯定的是,史密斯当时正处于某种仪式的中心,这种仪式类似于部落里男孩成年礼前的仪式。他们会经历一场假装的处决或死亡,然后重生为男人。波卡洪塔斯被预先选定为他的保护者。她实际上并没有救他的命,因为波瓦坦人并没有真的打算杀他。

What almost certainly happened was that Smith was the center of a ritual similar to what young boys in the tribe went through before entering manhood. They have a pretend execution or death and then are reborn as men. Pocahontas was preselected to be his protector. She did not actually save his life because the Powhatan were not really going to kill him.


资料来源:摘要改编自 Philip Barbour 的《波卡洪塔斯和她的世界》(波士顿:霍顿·米夫林出版社,1969 年)。

Source: Summary adapted from Philip Barbour, Pocahontas and Her World (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969).


词库

WORD BANK


仪式——习俗、典礼

ritual—custom, ceremony


工具1.1 :波卡洪塔斯约翰·史密斯相关事件时间线

TOOL 1.1: TIMELINE OF EVENTS RELATED TO POCAHONTAS AND JOHN SMITH


图像

工具1.2 比较史密斯账目

TOOL 1.2: COMPARING SMITH’S ACCOUNTS


  1. 史密斯关于1607年12月被俘经历的两份记述中,有哪些不同的事实?(请在下方空白处作答,或在背面绘制维恩图。)









    《真实记述》资料1.1)记载:









    《通史》资料1.2)记载:









  2. What are the different facts in Smith’s two accounts of his captivity in December 1607? (Use the space below to answer or create a Venn diagram on the back of this sheet.)









    A True Relation (Source 1.1) says:









    General History (Source 1.2) says:









  3. 史密斯为什么要补充他之前的故事呢?









  4. Why would Smith add on to his earlier story?









  5. 他为什么会撒谎、夸大其词,甚至捏造新信息?









  6. Why might he lie or exaggerate and invent new information?









  7. 他为什么不编造这个故事呢?
  8. Why wouldn’t he lie about the story?

工具1.3 比较历史学家史密斯

TOOL 1.3: COMPARING HISTORIANS AND SMITH


假设史密斯最新著作(《弗吉尼亚通史》)中的基本事实(尽管不一定是对这些事实的解释)属实,请在下方记录该段落中事实的“逐条”描述:

Assuming that the basic facts (though not necessarily the interpretation of the facts) in Smith’s latest account (the General History of Virginia) are true, record below a “play-by-play” description of the facts in the passage:

  1.  









  2.  









  3.  









  4.  









  5.  









  6.  









  7.  









  8.  









  9.  
  10.  

 

 

哪些历史学家认为上述基本过程确实发生过?

Which historians believe that the basic sequence above did occur?

 

 

请描述他们认为上述事实意味着什么:

Describe what they think the facts (above) mean:

  1. 历史学家___________________认为……









  2. Historian ___________________ believes …









  3. 历史学家___________________认为……
  4. Historian ___________________ believes …

工具1.4 比较历史学家史密斯

TOOL 1.4: COMPARING HISTORIANS AND SMITH


请参阅史密斯最新记述中对事实的“逐条描述”。并将其与刘易斯和巴伯对这些事实的解读进行比较。

Refer to the “play-by-play” description of the facts in Smith’s latest account. Compare this to Lewis’s and Barbour’s interpretations of these facts.

 

 

哪些历史学家认为上述基本过程确实发生过?

Which historians believe that the basic sequence above did occur?

 

 

 

 

请描述他们认为上述事实意味着什么:

Describe what they think the facts (above) mean:

  1. 历史学家___________________认为……









  2. Historian ___________________ believes …









  3. 历史学家___________________认为……
  4. Historian ___________________ believes …

 

 

工具1.5 :分析文章波卡洪塔斯救约翰·史密斯

TOOL 1.5: ANALYTICAL ESSAY DID POCAHONTAS SAVE JOHN SMITH?


1. 再次观看迪士尼电影《风中奇缘》中宝嘉康蒂救约翰·史密斯的片段。迪士尼声称这部电影“负责任、准确且尊重历史”。你同意吗?为什么?请用一篇文章阐述你的观点。并引用相关资料中的证据来支持你对这段电影片段的分析。

1. Watch the Disney clip of Pocahontas saving John Smith again. Disney claims that its film is “responsible, accurate, and respectful.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Explain your position in an essay. Use evidence from the documents to support your analysis of this film clip.

2. 写一份论文提纲,并与老师分享。

2. Write an outline of your essay and share it with your teacher.

  1. 明确立场
  2. Include a clear position.
  3. 列出你用来支持你立场的要点。
  4. List the points you want to make to support your position.
  5. 列举支持你观点的关键证据
  6. Cite key pieces of evidence that support your position.

3. 写你的文章。

3. Write your essay.

  1. 在引言段落中阐明你的立场。
  2. Convey your position in the introductory paragraph.
  3. 请阐述你的观点和证据。
  4. Explain your points and your evidence.
  5. 最后总结你的论点。
  6. Conclude with a wrap-up of your argument.

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/

该网站由弗吉尼亚理工大学和弗吉尼亚大学及其数字历史中心合作创建,包含丰富的教学资源,包括当地印第安人的第一手资料和视频采访。

This site, created through collaboration between Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia and its Center for Digital History, includes a rich set of teaching and learning resources, including first-hand accounts and video interviews with local Indians.

http://historicjamestowne.org/

http://historicjamestowne.org/

该网站由弗吉尼亚州古迹保护协会和国家公园管理局维护,内容包括早期殖民者的传记以及教学资源,旨在让学生参与正在进行的考古发掘工作和该地区的地理知识。

Maintained by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia’s Antiquities and the National Park Service, this site includes biographies of the early colonists and teaching resources for involving students with the ongoing archeological digs and the area’s geography.

http://www.apva.org/jr.html

http://www.apva.org/jr.html

本网站由弗吉尼亚州文物保护协会维护,是詹姆斯敦遗址考古工作的官方网站。内容包括展览信息、正在进行的挖掘工作的最新进展以及与詹姆斯敦相关的简要历史介绍。

Maintained by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia’s Antiquities, this is the home page for the archeological efforts at the Jamestown site. It includes exhibits and updates about the ongoing digs and brief histories relevant to Jamestown.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/exploresources.php

http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/exploresources.php

这是一个独特的网站,展示了一位小学教师与学生一起规划和使用约翰·史密斯 1612 年绘制的弗吉尼亚地图的视频,以及一位学者对该地图的分析。

A unique site that shows a video of an elementary teacher planning and using John Smith’s 1612 map of Virginia with her students as well as a scholar’s analysis of the map.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/POCA/POC-home.html

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/POCA/POC-home.html

本网站主要介绍宝嘉康蒂及其不同时期的形象。您可以在这里找到她的洗礼画作。

This site focuses on Pocahontas and representations of her over time. Here you can find the Baptism painting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pocahontas

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pocahontas

作为 PBS 视频《揭秘波卡洪塔斯》的配套网站,该网站包括一篇关于“詹姆斯敦科学”的专题报道、对一位历史学家和一位潮水区印第安酋长的采访,以及一个关于波卡洪塔斯形象变化的互动展览。

This companion site to the PBS video Pocahontas Revealed includes a feature on the “science of Jamestown,” interviews with a historian and a Tidewater Indian chief, and an interactive exhibit of the changing images of Pocahontas.

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/pocahontas/index.php

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/pocahontas/index.php

这是一个由一位英语教授维护的档案库,其中包含大量关于波卡洪塔斯的资料。

An archive maintained by an English professor, this site has an extensive variety of resources concerning Pocahontas.

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/index.htm

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/index.htm

该网站由国家公园管理局维护,包含有关詹姆斯敦及其居民各个方面的资料单。

Maintained by the National Park Service, this site includes fact sheets about many aspects of Jamestown and its residents.

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/amerhistory/interactives/

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/amerhistory/interactives/

用户可以将宝嘉康蒂的形象与描述进行匹配,然后通过生动的上下文线索将它们放置在时间轴上。这项基于网络的互动活动利用宝嘉康蒂形象的不断变化来引入时间顺序思维。

Users can match representations of Pocahontas with descriptions and then access lively contextual clues to place them on a timeline. This interactive web-based activity uses changing representations of Pocahontas to introduce chronological thinking.

 

 


第二章

CHAPTER 2


是“屹立不倒”还是“逃离现场”?

“Standing Tall” or Fleeing the Scene?

雅各布·道格拉斯和萨姆·温伯格

Jacob Douglas and Sam Wineburg

图像

科尼利厄斯·蒂博特,《列克星顿战役》,1790年。版画。访问地址:http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004669978/

Cornelius Tiebout, Battle of Lexington, 1790. Engraving. Accessed at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004669978/

为纪念列克星顿战役150周年——这场“响彻世界的枪声”——美国邮政发行了一枚面值两美分的纪念邮票(资料来源2.3)。这枚邮票发行于1925年,描绘了一队民兵坚定地对抗优势英军的场景。邮票展现了民兵们还击、装弹、挥舞拳头等各种姿态,呈现了美国人引以为豪的英雄故事。

For the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington—the “shot heard ’round the world”—the U.S. Postal Service produced a two-cent commemorative stamp (Source 2.3). Issued in 1925, the stamp depicts a solid line of Minutemen resolutely facing superior British forces. Portraying the Minutemen in various stages of returning fire, reloading, and defiantly shaking their fists, the image projects a heroic version of the story that Americans had proudly come to regard as fact.

只有一个小问题:这枚邮票并非基于目击者的描述,而是基于亨利·桑德汉姆 (Henry Sandham) 于 1886 年创作的一幅画作。桑德汉姆的画作完成于事件发生一个多世纪之后(资料来源 2.2),描绘了反抗的美国人违抗命令离开列克星顿绿地的情景。然而,如果我们看看另一幅描绘该事件的作品,一幅创作于事件发生几周后而非几年后的画作,就会呈现出截然不同的印象。1775 年秋,一位名叫阿莫斯·杜利特尔 (Amos Doolittle) 的 21 岁银匠创作了一幅金属版画,描绘了当年四月发生的这场遭遇战(资料来源 2.1)。杜利特尔的版画中,英国正规军向一群仓皇逃窜的民兵开火,列克星顿民兵没有一个人表现出丝毫抵抗。杜利特尔版画中的殖民者并非在绝对劣势下屹立不倒,而是在拼命逃命。

There was only one little problem: The stamp was based not on eyewitness accounts of the battle, but on an 1886 painting by Henry Sandham. Completed well over a century after the actual event (Source 2.2), Sandham’s painting showed rebellious Americans defying orders to leave Lexington Green. However, if we look at another rendering of the event, one created weeks after the event, not years, a different impression emerges. In the fall of 1775, a 21-year-old silversmith named Amos Doolittle created a metal engraving depicting the encounter that had taken place that April (Source 2.1). Doolittle’s etching has British regulars firing on a ragtag group of fleeing Minutemen, with not a single member of the Lexington militia showing the slightest sign of resistance. The colonists in Doolittle’s engraving are not standing tall in the face of overwhelming odds. They are fleeing for their lives.

这两幅图像形成了鲜明的对比——第一幅承载着美国邮政署的权威性和合法性,第二幅则出自一位名不见经传的康涅狄格州工匠之手——这引出了一个关键问题:1775年4月19日清晨,莱克星顿绿地究竟发生了什么?称这场遭遇为“战斗”是否恰当?称之为“屠杀”或“不幸的血腥误会”是否更合适?为了简洁起见,是否最好将此事中立地称为“莱克星顿事件”?

The striking contrast between these two images—the first carrying the weight and legitimacy of the United States Postal Service, the second drawn by an obscure Connecticut craftsman—brings us to a critical question: What happened at Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775? Is it even appropriate to call this encounter a “battle”? Would it be better labeled a “massacre” or even an unfortunate but bloody misunderstanding? Would it be preferable, for simplicity’s sake, to refer to this event neutrally as the “Incident at Lexington”?

史学辩论

Historiographical Debate

列克星顿战役的真相在事件发生约50年后才浮出水面,当时列克星顿和康科德两镇就谁才是美国独立战争中第一个击毙英军的地方展开了争论。1825年,列克星顿居民伊莱亚斯·菲尼出版了《列克星顿战役史》,试图驳斥美国首次抵抗实际上发生在邻近的康科德的说法。菲尼利用事发50年后收集的目击者证词,对列克星顿战役的描述与桑德汉姆1886年的画作(以及1925年的邮票)相符。根据菲尼的记述,民兵队长约翰·帕克命令“所有人坚守阵地”,并威胁要枪毙第一个擅离职守的人。菲尼随后列出了每一位坚守阵地并向英军还击的民兵,其中包括几位负伤后仍继续战斗的士兵。因此,亨利·桑德汉姆1886年的画作与菲尼的作品相呼应也就不足为奇了:这幅画是列克星顿历史学会委托创作的,学会支付给桑德汉姆4000美元,让他创作一幅描绘列克星顿之子英勇形象的插图

The question of what really happened at Lexington came to light some 50 years after the event as the towns of Lexington and Concord fought over the distinction of who spilled the first British blood of the American Revolution. In 1825, Lexington’s Elias Phinney published his History of the Battle at Lexington, an effort to refute claims that the first American resistance actually occurred at neighboring Concord. Using depositions of eyewitnesses taken 50 years after the fact, Phinney describes the Battle of Lexington in ways consistent with Sandham’s 1886 painting (and, for that matter, the 1925 postage stamp). According to Phinney’s account, John Parker, the Minutemen’s captain, ordered “every man to stand his ground” and threatened to shoot the first man who left his post. Phinney then lists each Minuteman who stood his ground and returned fire on the British, including several who continued fighting after sustaining wounds. No wonder, then, that Henry Sandham’s 1886 painting corresponds to Phinney’s work: It was commissioned by the Lexington Historical Society, which paid Sandham $4,000 for an illustration that portrayed Lexington’s sons in a courageous light.1

在菲尼的记述发表七年后,康科德的埃兹拉·里普利发表了反驳文章。里普利认为,第一次武装抵抗英国人的事件发生在康科德,并声称列克星顿的民兵从未向英军还击。相反,他声称列克星顿的民兵在英军开火后立即溃散(这一描述与1775年杜立特尔的版画相符)。几乎没有证据支持美国人在列克星顿进行反击的说法。里普利认为,那些证实这一说法的描述都出自英国军官之手,他们不仅想证明美国人开了枪,而且还想证明是美国人先开的枪。里普利暗示里普利认为,列克星顿事件可以称之为屠杀或混战,但不能称之为战斗。相反,他断言美国独立战争的第一场真正意义上的战斗发生在康科德。尽管里普利的论述不无道理,但实际上却是为了使康科德赢得美国独立战争中第一个反抗英国军队的荣誉,正如菲尼试图将这一殊荣归于列克星顿一样。

Seven years after Phinney’s account, Concord’s Ezra Ripley issued a rebuttal. Arguing that the first armed resistance to the British had taken place at Concord, Ripley contended that Lexington’s Minutemen never returned fire on the British. Instead, he claimed that the Lexington militia scattered in disarray as soon as the British started firing (a depiction that corresponds with the 1775 Doolittle engraving). Little evidence existed to support the notion that Americans fought back at Lexington. Those descriptions that did substantiate that claim, Ripley argued, were by British officers who had a vested interest not only in showing that the Americans had fired their weapons, but fired first. Ripley suggested that the incident at Lexington could be called a massacre or a melee, but not a battle. Instead, he asserted that the first real battle of the American Revolution took place at Concord.2 Despite its strengths, Ripley’s account was a thinly veiled attempt to win Concord the honor of being the first to fight back against the British in the American Revolution, just as Phinney’s was an attempt to claim that distinction for Lexington.

近一个世纪后,在马萨诸塞州历史学会的一次会议上,来自波士顿的银行家兼业余历史学家哈罗德·默多克发表了一篇论文,对列克星顿战役的传统叙述提出了质疑。他认为,美国人顽强抵抗英军进攻的故事,是由于“大量可疑证据的积累”而逐渐被人们接受为事实。“传统、传说、曲调和歌曲都在列克星顿故事的重构中发挥了作用。” ³为了论证列克星顿战役的真相,默多克首先引用了杜立特的版画,指出“即使使用放大镜也无法发现该连队中任何成员表现出抵抗姿态;没有还击的迹象,甚至连装弹的迹象都没有。” 默多克解释说,随着时间的推移,艺术作品描绘了美国人更强烈的抵抗姿态,最终在桑德汉姆1886年的画作中达到顶峰,画中的殖民者被描绘成手持火枪的叛军。虽然默多克没有为历史证据体系引入任何新信息,但他一丝不苟地详细描述了菲尼的记述、桑德汉姆的画作和其他证据中的矛盾之处,例如英国人遭受的伤亡人数异常少(一名士兵受了轻伤,一匹马受了伤)。

Nearly a century later, at a meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Harold Murdock, a banker and amateur historian from Boston, delivered a paper that called into question the traditional account of the Battle of Lexington. The story of Americans defiantly resisting a British advance, he argued, was due to “the accumulation of a mass of questionable evidence” that had gradually become accepted as truth. “Tradition, legend, tune, and song all played their part in the reconstruction of the Lexington story.”3 In making the argument for what happened at Lexington, Murdock began with the Doolittle engraving, noting that “even the magnifying glass fail[ed] to reveal any member of that company in an attitude of resistance; no suggestion of a return fire, or even of loading.”4 Over time, Murdock explained, artistic renderings depicted greater levels of resistance on the part of the Americans, culminating in Sandham’s 1886 painting in which the colonists emerged as musket-toting rebels. While Murdock introduced no new information to the body of historical evidence, he painstakingly detailed the discrepancies in Phinney’s account, Sandham’s painting, and other evidence, such as the remarkably few casualties sustained by the British (one superficially wounded soldier and a wounded horse).

1959年,亚瑟·图特洛特(Arthur Tourtellot)用此后几年获得的证据支持了默多克(Murdock)的论点。他承认美国人可能确实向英军开火,但他指出,“美军的火力远不及英军,而且极其不稳定和不规则”——显然并非民兵在近距离持续装弹的密集阵型。⁵基于这些学者的说法,列克星顿“战役”——一个值得印制纪念邮票的故事——似乎更像是神话而非历史。

In 1959 Arthur Tourtellot supported Murdock’s arguments with evidence that had become available in the intervening years. While conceding that the Americans might have actually fired on the British, he noted that “the American fire did not come close to matching the British in volume, and it was extremely erratic and irregular”—clearly not a solid line of Minutemen reloading their firearms at close range.5 Based on the claims of these scholars, the “Battle” of Lexington, a tale worthy of commemorative postage stamps, would seem to be more myth than history.

原始资料怎么说?诚然,关于1775年4月19日清晨莱克星顿绿地究竟发生了什么,至今仍存在争议,但普遍认为,这并非一场史诗般的战斗,而更像是杜利特尔1775年版画中所描绘的那种混乱撤退。莱克星顿民兵自身的原始记录也强化了这一说法。1775年4月23日至25日,即莱克星顿和康科德事件发生几天后,由殖民地居民设立的法外管理机构——马萨诸塞省议会,安排了支持民兵事业的治安法官对在场的莱克星顿绿地居民进行取证。这些证词被送往议会,并在全英国公布,试图将殖民地居民描绘成英国军队野蛮行径的无辜受害者。当时的殖民地法官共对97人进行了21次取证;有些证词只列出了 1 或 2 个人的名字,而有些证词则包含了 30 多个证人的名字。

What Do the Primary Sources Say? To be sure, disagreement remains over what exactly happened on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775, but the consensus points away from an epic battle and more toward the chaotic retreat depicted in Doolittle’s 1775 engraving. This version is strengthened by the primary accounts of the Lexington Minutemen themselves. On April 23–25, 1775, several days after the events at Lexington and Concord, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, an extralegal governing body set up by the colonials, arranged for justices of the peace (favorable to the Minutemen’s cause) to take depositions from those present on Lexington Green. These depositions were sent to Parliament and published throughout England in an effort to portray the colonials as innocent victims of the British army’s barbarism. Colonial justices of the period took 21 depositions from 97 individuals; while some of the depositions bore the name of only 1 or 2, some contained the names of over 30 deponents.

其中一份证词来自纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素和列克星顿民兵的其他 32 名成员,对列克星顿绿地的景象描述如下(见资料 2.5):

One such deposition, taken from Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, and 32 other members of the Lexington militia, described the scene at Lexington Green as follows (see Source 2.5):

大约早上五点,我们听到鼓声,便向阅兵场(列克星顿绿地)进发。很快,我们发现一大群士兵正朝我们走来。我们连队的一些士兵正赶到阅兵场,另一些已经到达。这时,我们连队开始分散。在我们背对英军时,他们向我们开火,我们许多人当场伤亡。据我们所知,在我们被英军开火之前,我们连队中没有人向他们开过枪。他们一直开火,直到我们全部逃脱

About five o’clock in the morning, hearing our drum beat, we proceeded towards the parade [Lexington Green] and soon found that a large body of troops were marching towards us, some of our company were coming up to the parade and others had reached it, at which time the company began to disperse, whilst our backs were turned on the [British] troops, we were fired on by them, and a number of our men were instantly killed and wounded, not a gun was fired by any person in our company on the regulars to our knowledge before they fired on us, and [they] continued firing until we had all made our escape.6

与当时的其他证词一样,这份证词也坚称是英军先开火,而且并非针对严阵以待的民兵,而是针对背对英军、四散奔逃的人群。虽然这对列克星顿民兵来说并不光彩,但这样的描述有​​助于让其他殖民地以及议会成员相信英军的残暴。尽管这份证词提供了令人信服的证据,但它也可能受到了殖民地居民政治利益的影响,他们试图将自己描绘成一场单方面屠杀的受害者。我们应该考虑对同一事件的其他视角。

Like the other depositions taken at this time, the account adamantly held that the British fired first, and not on a firmly planted line of Minutemen, but on a dispersing crowd fleeing with their backs turned. While not flattering to the Lexington militia, such an image would have been useful in convincing the other colonies, as well as members of Parliament, of the cruelty of the British troops. While the deposition presents compelling evidence, it may also have been tainted by the political interests of colonials seeking to portray themselves as victims of a one-sided massacre. We should consider additional perspectives on the same events.

英国第四轻步兵团连队成员约翰·巴克中尉是当天早上在列克星顿绿地的军官之一,他在日记中记录了这些事件出人意料的相似描述(见资料 2.4):

Lieutenant John Barker, a member of the British Light Infantry Company of the Fourth Regiment and one of the officers present on Lexington Green that morning, recorded in his diary a surprisingly similar account of these events (see Source 2.4):

19日,下午2点,我们开始行军,趟过一条很长的浅滩,一直走到我们中间。走了几英里后,我们带上了三四个准备去打探情报的人。大约在我们行军路线上的莱克星顿镇这边5英里处,我们听说那里聚集了数百人,打算阻拦我们继续前进。下午5点,我们到达那里,看到大约200到300人聚集在镇中心的一片空地上。我们继续前进,虽然没有主动攻击的打算,但始终保持警惕。然而,当我们靠近他们时,他们开了一两枪,我们随即开火。一些未经命令的人冲向他们,开枪射击,将他们击退;其中几人被打死,我们无法统计具体人数,因为他们被赶到墙后和树林里……之后我们在公共用地集结,但过程颇为艰难,这些人非常狂暴,根本听不进任何命令;我们在那里等了相当长的时间,最终才继续前往康科德。7

19th. At 2 o’clock we began our march by wading through a very long ford up to our middles: after going a few miles we took 3 or 4 people who were going off to give intelligence; about 5 miles on this side of a town called Lexington which lay in our road, we heard there were some hundreds of people collected together intending to oppose us and stop our going on; at 5 o’clock we arrived there and saw a number of people, I believe between 200 and 300, formed on a common in the middle of the town; we still continued advancing, keeping prepared against an attack tho’ without intending to attack them, but on our coming near them they fired one or two shots, upon which our men without any orders rushed in upon them, fired and put ’em to flight; several of them were killed, we cou’d not tell how many because they were got behind walls and into the woods…. We then formed on the Common but with some difficulty, the men were so wild they cou’d hear no orders; we waited a considerable time there and at length proceeded on our way to Concord.7

对比美英双方对莱克星顿绿地事件的描述,我们或许会发现一些差异。例如,双方都声称对方先开火,这并不令人意外。但更引人注目的是,双方的说法在以下方面却不谋而合:双方都没有提及民兵的顽强抵抗。

In looking at both American and British versions of the events at Lexington Green, we might expect some differences. It is not surprising, for instance, that each report claimed that the other fired first. But more striking is where these accounts match up: Neither side describes significant resistance by the Minutemen.

历史学家在探寻历史真相时,依赖于证据佐证,即仔细考量不同来源的共同点。当多个来源的说法一致时,尤其当这些来源来自对立双方时,我们就能更信赖其准确性。一位英国军官的日记与民兵的证词相符,这无疑增强了这一事件版本的可信度。

When historians try to discover what happened in the past, they rely on corroboration, the careful consideration of points of contact across different sources. When multiple sources agree, particularly when they come from opposing sides, we can take greater stock in their accuracy. The fact that a British officer’s diary corroborates the deposition given by the Minutemen lends greater credibility to this version of the event.

原始资料是历史课本中呈现给学生的叙述素材。但神话也会悄然渗入教科书。请看下面这段摘自1963年美国中学历史教科书的文字:

Primary sources are the raw materials that get distilled into the textbook narratives served up to students in history classes. But myth creeps into textbooks as well. Consider the following passage taken from a 1963 American history textbook for middle school students:

1775年4月,马萨诸塞州军事总督盖奇将军派遣一支部队前往波士顿附近的康科德,夺取那里的军需品。在莱克星顿,一小群得到保罗·里维尔通风报信的“奋战的农民”挡住了英军的去路。“叛军”奉命解散,但他们坚守阵地。英军开火,八名爱国者被打死。保罗·里维尔将这起暴行的消息传到了邻近的殖民地。新英格兰的爱国者虽然人数仍然不多,但现在已经准备好与英国人作战

In April 1775 General Gage, the military governor of Massachusetts, sent out a body of troops to take possession of military supplies at Concord, a short distance from Boston. At Lexington, a handful of “embattled farmers” who had been tipped off by Paul Revere, barred the way. The “rebels” were ordered to disperse. They stood their ground. The English fired a volley of shots that killed eight patriots. Paul Revere spread the news of this new atrocity to the neighboring colonies. The patriots of New England, although still a handful, were now ready to fight the English.8

教科书反复声称,民兵在接到解散命令时“坚守阵地”。然而,民兵自身的证词和巴克的日记中都没有提到民兵“坚守阵地”这件事。

The textbook repeats the claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground” when ordered to disperse. Yet neither the Minutemen’s own depositions nor Barker’s diary say anything about the Minutemen “standing their ground.”

如果我们再查阅另一份资料,即列克星顿绿地事件发生时耶鲁大学校长埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的日记,就能更深入地了解当时可能发生的情况(资料2.6)。根据斯泰尔斯从英军指挥官皮特凯恩少校那里得到的消息,美国殖民者在接到解散命令时确实“坚守阵地”。然而,一旦开火,他们便四散奔逃。正如斯泰尔斯所记录的那样:

If we look at yet another source, the diary of Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale College at the time of the events at Lexington Green, we gain a deeper understanding of what may have happened (Source 2.6). According to an account Stiles received from Major Pitcairn, who commanded the British troops, the American colonists did “stand their ground” when they were ordered to disperse. However, once firing commenced, they ran for their lives. As Stiles recorded it:

皮特凯恩的叙述是这样的——他骑马来到他们面前,命令他们散开;他们没有立即照办,于是他转身命令部队拉开距离,包围并解除他们的武装。就在这时,他看到墙后一个农民手里拿着一支枪,枪口闪了一下,但没有响;紧接着,或者很快,两三支枪响了。9

[Pitcairn’s] account is this—that riding up to them he ordered them to disperse; which they not doing instantly, he turned about to order his troops so to draw out as to surround and disarm them. As he turned, he saw a gun in a peasant’s hand from behind a wall, flash in the pan without going off; and instantly or very soon two or three guns went off.9

皮特凯恩并没有说他亲眼看到美国人先开火,也没有说交火开始后他们就坚守阵地。他只是说殖民者违抗了撤离莱克星顿绿地的命令。斯泰尔斯的说法未必与巴克或穆利肯的说法相矛盾。或许民兵确实坚守了阵地,但当枪声响起时,他们可能没有还击就逃走了。

Pitcairn did not say that he saw the Americans fire first. Nor does he say that once the firing began they stood their ground. What he does say is that the colonists defied an order to quit Lexington Green. Stiles’s version does not necessarily contradict those of Barker or Mulliken. Perhaps the Minutemen did stand their ground, but when shots were fired, they may have fled without returning fire.

关于列克星顿绿地事件,仍有许多未解之谜,尤其是关于谁开了第一枪。巴克声称,当英军接近绿地时,民兵向英军“开了一两枪”;而民兵则辩称,他们是在背对英军时遭到射击的。这种说法虽然并不令人意外,但实际上,它更多地反映了每份文件的写作目的,而非所描述的事件本身——在判断一份文件的可信度时,这一点值得我们牢记。任何文件都不是凭空产生的。每份文件的历史背景究竟是什么?

Unanswered questions continue to swirl about the events on Lexington Green, especially concerning who fired the first shot. Barker claimed that as troops approached the Green, the Minutemen “fired one or two shots” at the British; the Minutemen argued that they were fired upon when their backs were turned. While not surprising, the discrepancy actually tells us more about the purpose of each document than the actual events described—a point to keep in mind when judging a document’s trustworthiness. No document is written in a vacuum. What exactly were the historical circumstances, or context, for each document?

我们知道,民兵的声明是由省议会递交给英国议会和英国民众的,他们希望将自己描绘成英国侵略的无辜受害者,而不是煽动叛乱的革命者。至于巴克,他写日记很可能并非仅仅为了记录内心感受,而是因为如果他需要向上级解释自己的行为,日记或许能为他开脱罪责。事实上,在我们与一群历史学家和一群高中生共同进行的一项研究中,其中一位历史学家向我们指出,巴克可能是在试图“掩盖自己的过错”。在两个都不光彩的选择之间——承认自己下达了开火命令,或者承认自己失去了对部队的控制——后者显然更可取。因此,如果这位中尉必须为自己下达开火命令的指控辩护,巴克的日记就能成为他的不在场证明。如果说他犯了错,那不是因为他下令开火,而是因为他的士兵在行军3小时后疲惫不堪、浑身湿透,在遭到射击时进行了还击。

We know that the Minutemen’s statement was sent by the Provincial Congress to Parliament and the British people, hoping to portray themselves as innocent victims of British aggression, not rabblerousing revolutionaries. For his part, Barker likely didn’t keep a diary simply to record his innermost feelings, but because it might serve to exonerate him if he had to justify his actions to higher authorities. Indeed, in a study we did using these documents with a group of historians and a group of high school students, one of the historians suggested to us that Barker may have been trying to “cover his backside.” Caught between two unflattering alternatives—admitting that he issued an order to fire or admitting that he lost control over his troops—the latter option was preferable.10 Thus, Barker’s diary would provide an alibi if the lieutenant had to defend himself against a charge of issuing an order to shoot. If he was at fault, it wasn’t because he issued an order to fire, but because his men, tired and soggy after a 3-hour march, were guilty of firing back when fired upon.

学生面临的挑战。当历史学家审查有关列克星顿或任何历史事件的证据时,他们首先会运用一套常见的解决问题的策略。首先,他们会询问资料来源,这个过程我们称之为“溯源”。约翰·巴克中尉是谁?我们如何确定他的证词可信?我们对证人纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素以及他们召集起来在三位法官面前作证的团体了解多少?和平?接下来,历史学家会考虑文件的背景:例如,为什么民兵组织要找治安法官来记录列克星顿事件?他们知道自己的证词会被送交殖民地议会代表本杰明·富兰克林,这如何影响了他们对治安法官的言行?最后,即使多份文件在关键细节上存在分歧,通过查阅多份文件(即相互印证)如何能够帮助我们更全面地理解这些事件?

Challenges for Students. When historians review evidence about Lexington or any historical event, they begin by using a common set of problem solving strategies. First, they ask about the source, a process we refer to as “sourcing.” Who was Lt. John Barker and how do we know he can be believed? What do we know about the deponents Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, and the group they assembled to testify before three Justices of the Peace? Next, historians consider a document’s context: Why, for example, did the Minutemen seek justices of the peace to take depositions for what happened at Lexington? How did knowing that their testimony would be sent to Benjamin Franklin, the colonial representative to Parliament, influence what they did and did not say to the justices? Finally, how does examining multiple documents, the act of corroboration, permit a broader understanding of these events, even when these documents disagree on key details?

在我们之前提到的研究中,我们使用列克星顿文献,比较了一组专业历史学家和一组才华横溢的高中生。我们特意挑选了专业领域并非美国历史的历史学家,以及在AP课程中学习并在美国革命相关知识测试中取得优异成绩的学生。在相同的文献资料和教科书段落下,两组学生都对每份文献的可靠性进行了排名。对于历史学家而言,教科书段落的可靠性排名垫底,因为其内容无法验证。 11 而学生们则倾向于认为教科书最为可靠,甚至有学生指出,教科书“只是在陈述事实”。 12对于学生来说,缺乏佐证证据和每份文献的来源信息似乎都无关紧要,但这些因素对历史学家而言却至关重要。尽管这些高中生阅读能力很强,但他们尚未养成进行历史探究所需的习惯。

In the study we referred to above, we compared a group of professional historians to a group of talented high school students using these Lexington documents. We purposely selected historians with specialties outside of American history, and we purposely selected students enrolled in Advanced Placement classrooms who had scored well on a test of facts about the American Revolution. Given the same sources and textbook passage used here, each group ranked each document in terms of its reliability. For historians, the textbook passage ranked dead last, because its claims could not be verified.11 Students, on the other hand, tended to view the textbook as most reliable, observing in one case that the book was “just reporting the facts.”12 Neither the lack of corroborating evidence nor the source information for each document seemed of great importance to the students, but those factors were of utmost importance to the historians. Even though the high school students were skilled readers, they had not yet acquired the habits necessary for engaging in historical inquiry.

1775年4月19日清晨,莱克星顿绿地究竟发生了什么?这个问题为学生们提供了一个绝佳的机会,让他们开始培养历史阅读技巧和思维习惯。美国人的集体记忆中,有一幅画面:民兵们坚守在莱克星顿,打响了拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生所说的“响彻世界的一枪”。然而,对莱克星顿事件的证据进行考察,却对这种英雄式的描述提出了令人不安的质疑。形象与证据之间的差异,为学生们提供了一个切入历史研究的切入点:调查和评估证据,将个别记述置于更广阔的背景之中,并核实文献,所有这些都是为了构建一幅历史全貌。学生们的任务看似简单:确定莱克星顿战役是否真的发生过!

The question of what happened on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775, provides a ripe opportunity for students to begin to develop historical reading skills and habits of mind. Part of Americans’ collective memory is the image of the Minutemen standing strong at Lexington as they fired, in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s words, the “shot heard ’round the world.” But an examination of the evidence from Lexington raises troubling questions about this heroic depiction. The discrepancies between image and evidence provide students with an entry point into doing history: investigating and evaluating evidence, placing individual accounts into a larger context, and corroborating documents, all with the purpose of constructing a picture of what happened in the past. Here the task for students is deceptively straightforward: to determine whether the Battle of Lexington was, in fact, even a battle!

总结性问题。让我们回顾一下,关于莱克星顿绿地事件,我们已知晓哪些事实,哪些事实我们永远无法知晓,以及哪些事实仍悬而未决。我们知道,当英军在前往康科德的途中抵达莱克星顿时,绿地上发生了枪战,造成八名民兵阵亡,十人受伤,而英军方面伤亡甚微(可能是友军误伤)。我们不知道是谁开了第一枪,而且可能永远也不会知道。不同的资料来源对此说法相互矛盾,而且每个来源都有其强烈的动机来做出自己的断言。

Concluding Questions. So let’s step back and consider what we know about the events on Lexington Green, what we will never be able to know, and what is still up for grabs. We know that when the British troops arrived in Lexington en route to Concord shots were fired on the Green that left eight Minutemen dead and ten wounded, and that the British for their part sustained minimal casualties (possibly caused by friendly fire). We do not know who fired the first shot and probably never will. Different sources contradict one another on this point, and each has a strong motive for making the claim that it does.

在这些论断之间穿插着一些问题,学生们可以在构建准确历史叙述的过程中展开辩论:列克星顿之战真的是一场战斗吗?民兵们那天早上真的打算抵抗英国人吗?如果不是,他们的目标是什么?英国人的意图是什么?在随后的美国独立战争中,这些事件对美国人和英国人分别意味着什么?

In between these claims are questions that students can debate as they work to construct an accurate historical narrative: Was the battle at Lexington really a battle? Did the Minutemen intend to resist the British that morning? If not, what was their goal? What was the intention of the British? What did these events mean for both the Americans and the British in the context of the ensuing struggle for American independence?

为什么要教授列克星顿绿地战役?

Why Teach About the Battle at Lexington Green?

这是一个教授已知知识的机会。历史上有些事件已被充分证实,几乎没有争议。就此主题而言,1775年4月19日发生在莱克星顿绿地的冲突毋庸置疑。然而,其他方面却超出了我们目前的理解范围。无论我们做了多少努力,我们都永远无法完全确定究竟发生了什么。

An Opportunity to Teach About What Is Knowable. Some events in history are well-established and there is little debate about what happened. For this topic, there is no question that a conflict took place on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775. Yet other aspects lie beyond our immediate understanding. No matter how much we do, we will never know with absolute certainty what happened.

正是在这片介于已知与未知之间的空间里,历史学家们辛勤耕耘。努力理解哪些可知、哪些不可知,迫使学生们直面证据的复杂性,并为他们提供从事真正历史研究的机会。

It is in this space—between the well-established and the unknowable—that historians toil. Struggling to understand what can and can’t be known forces students to wrestle with the messiness of evidence, and gives them a chance to engage in legitimate historical work.

探索神话如何与历史交织的机会。每个国家的历史都充满了传说、歪曲和神话。教导学生事实错误如何悄然渗入历史记录,甚至被印在邮票上,对于培养他们的怀疑精神和敏锐的辨别力至关重要。同样重要的是,这种方法能将学生变成探寻真相的历史侦探,这比填写练习题更有动力。

A Chance to Explore How Myth Becomes Interwoven with History. Every nation’s history is full of legends, distortions, and myths. Teaching students how factual inaccuracies creep into the historical record, even becoming enshrined on a postage stamp, is essential to helping them develop a sense of skepticism and a keen eye for evidence. Equally important, this approach turns students into historical detectives in search of truth, a task far more motivating than filling in a worksheet.

无论是英国还是美国的第一手资料,都没有证实民兵在列克星顿“屹立不倒”的形象,这种形象是由个人兴趣、可疑的学术研究和地方因素共同塑造的。因此,这为引导学生思考作者的动机、证据的重要性以及为了迎合当下需要而改写历史的普遍倾向提供了一个契机。

Corroborated neither by British nor American primary sources, the image of Minutemen “standing tall” at Lexington has been shaped by personal interest, dubious scholarship, and local concerns. Consequently, it presents an opportunity to teach students to think about the motives of authors, the importance of evidence, and the ever-present tendency to rewrite the past to suit the needs of the present.

利用视觉资料的机会。原始资料是历史的原材料。通常情况下,历史学家依靠书面文献来拼凑过去发生的事件。但视觉资料也可以是原始资料。阿莫斯·杜利特尔1775年的版画就是如此。它与埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的日记一样,都是重要的第一手资料。两者都创作于事件发生的同一年,都试图记录莱克星顿绿地事件,以供后人参考。

An Opportunity to Use Visual Sources. Primary sources are the raw materials of history. More often than not, historians rely on written documents to piece together the events of the past. But visual sources can be primary sources, too. Amos Doolittle’s 1775 engraving is every bit as much a primary source as the diary of Ezra Stiles. Both were created in the same year as the event itself, and both attempted to record the events at Lexington Green for the sake of posterity.

在历史探究过程中,运用视觉资料至关重要。即使是那些难以理解文字资料的学生,也能有效地找出阿莫斯·杜利特尔的版画和亨利·桑德汉姆的油画之间的视觉差异,并提出假设来解释这两幅图像为何会存在分歧。但需要注意的是:当使用视觉资料时,学生往往会将视觉上的准确性——即画面看起来有多逼真——误认为是历史的准确性。由于桑德汉姆的画作“看起来更真实”,比杜利特尔的简笔画人物更栩栩如生,一些学生即使面对大量相反的证据,也会认为桑德汉姆的画作更准确。

Using visual sources is invaluable to the process of history inquiry. Even students struggling with written sources can productively locate the visual discrepancies between Amos Doolittle’s engraving and Henry Sandham’s oil painting, and generate hypotheses for why the two images might disagree. But beware: When you use visual sources, students will invariably mistake visual accuracy—how realistic a picture looks—with historical accuracy. Because Sandham’s painting “looks more real,” with more lifelike depictions than Doolittle’s stick figures, some students will judge it to be the more accurate of the two, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

你会如何使用这些材料?

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景 1(1-2 小时课程)。列克星顿绿地之战真的是一场战斗吗?分析并比较列克星顿绿地冲突的图片,以找出可能发生的事情(参见工具 2.1)。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). Was the battle at Lexington Green truly a battle? Analyze and compare images of the conflict at Lexington Green to figure out what might have happened (see Tool 2.1).


CCSS

9–10 #1

11–12 #4

CCSS

9–10 #1

11–12 #4


本课首先展示三幅图像:杜利特尔的版画、桑德汉姆的油画以及美国邮票上的图像(资料来源 2.1、2.2、2.3) 。不要提及每幅图像的创作日期,让学生描述他们所看到的内容。他们会注意到邮票是根据桑德汉姆的油画设计的,这在学生看来可能会赋予这幅图像特殊的权威性。(否则邮政部门为何会选择它呢?)帮助学生认识到这两幅图像呈现的是同一事件的不同版本。由于桑德汉姆的油画得益于当时艺术在透视和景深表现方面的进步,一些学生会认为它比杜利特尔的版画更准确。培养历史判断力的一部分在于抵制视觉上的诱惑,并认识到生动逼真的画面并不能取代历史的真实性。

Begin this lesson with three images: the Doolittle engraving, the Sandham painting, and the image of the U.S. postage stamp (Sources 2.1, 2.2, 2.3). Without recourse to the dates of each image, ask students to describe what they see. They will notice that the postage stamp is based on the Sandham painting, which in students’ minds may confer the image with special legitimacy. (Why else would the postal service choose to feature it?) Help students establish that these two images provide different versions of the same event. Because Sandham’s painting benefits from artistic advances in portraying perspective and depth, some students will judge it to be the more accurate of the two. Part of developing historical judgment is resisting what appeals to the eye, and learning that vividness and artistic realism are no substitute for truthfulness.

请学生们解读他们所看到的景象。他们是否能发现列克星顿绿地上交战双方在外貌、姿态或组织结构上的差异?学生们会注意到一些共同点——例如树木、建筑物、列队行进的部队——以及一些矛盾之处,例如民兵是逃跑了还是坚守阵地。一些学生会尝试编造故事来调和这些图像,而另一些学生则会认为其中一幅图像是真实的,而另一幅是错误的。

Ask students to interpret what they see. Do they detect differences in appearance, posture, or organization between the combatants on Lexington Green? Students will notice some consistencies—a tree, buildings, troops arrayed in a line—as well as some contradictions, such as whether the Minutemen fled or held their ground. While some students will try to create stories that reconcile the images, others will assume that one image is accurate and the other not.

此时,向学生介绍杜利特尔版画和桑德汉姆绘画的创作日期,提醒他们这些事件发生在1775年。帮助他们理解这一新信息的重要性。随着我们与真实事件的距离越来越远,人类的记忆会发生什么变化?将学生分组,让他们研读两份原始文献(资料2.4、2.5),以验证或重新评估他们对引导性问题的看法

At this point, introduce into the discussion the dates of the Doolittle engraving and the Sandham painting, reminding students that the events took place in 1775. Help them to mine the importance of this new information. What happens to human memory the more distant we become from actual events? Organize students into groups to examine the two written primary source documents (Sources 2.4, 2.5) with the aim of confirming or reevaluating their positions on the guiding question.

为了评估学生对视觉文献的解读能力,请他们思考美国革命前夕的另一起事件——波士顿惨案的图像。利用斯蒂芬·明茨在优秀的“数字历史”(Digital History)网站(http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/revolution_art.cfm)上发布的“探索2”(Exploration 2),让他们对比保罗·里维尔著名的1770年版画、1770年的一幅石版画和1868年的一幅石版画。哪一幅最准确地描绘了波士顿惨案?视觉上的准确性和历史上的准确性有何不同?

To assess students’ reading of visual documents, ask them to consider images from another event in pre-Revolutionary America, the Boston Massacre. Using Stephen Mintz’s “Exploration 2” on the excellent “Digital History” website (see http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/revolution_art.cfm), consider Paul Revere’s famous 1770 engraving alongside a lithograph from 1770 and another from 1868. Which depicts the Boston Massacre most accurately? How do visual accuracy and historical accuracy differ?

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 图像分析
  • Analyzing images
  • 区分视觉准确性和历史准确性
  • Distinguishing between visual and historical accuracy
  • 来源背景
  • Contextualizing sources
  • 佐证来源
  • Corroborating sources
  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation

情景二(1小时课程):重点关注资料来源。本情景旨在引导学生重视通常出现在文献末尾的信息——即文献的作者及其撰写背景。初学者往往会忽略或轻视这些信息。而历史学家则会立即着重研究这些信息,并常常将其作为后续分析的框架。

Scenario 2 (1 Hour Lesson). Focus on sourcing. This scenario teaches students to privilege the information that typically appears at the end of a document—information about who wrote a document and the circumstances of its composition. Novices typically skip this information or give it little heed. Historians, on the other hand, zoom in on it immediately, often using it as a framework for their ensuing analysis.


CCSS

#1,#6

CCSS

#1, #6


首先阅读教科书中的这段文字(资料来源 2.7)。这段摘录为您提供了一个绝佳的机会,可以教学生如何精读,并关注文字如何传达情感。请他们追踪民兵在这段简短文字中的转变过程:从“饱受战火蹂躏的农民”(暗指爱默生的《康科德颂》)到“叛乱者”(教科书作者为什么要给这个词加引号?引号的含义是什么?),最终成为“新英格兰的爱国者”。请他们思考这本教科书的书名。这里呈现的叙事方式与书名之间有何关联?诸如此类的问题能够引导学生超越信息本身,更深入地理解教科书的意义。这有助于他们将教科书视为另一种历史资料,它同样承载着某种视角,反映了特定的观点。

Begin with the textbook account (Source 2.7). This excerpt provides you with an excellent opportunity to teach your students how to read closely and to focus on how words convey feeling and emotion. Ask them to track how the Minutemen undergo a metamorphosis in this short paragraph, moving from “embattled farmers” (an allusion to Emerson’s “Concord Hymn”) to “rebels” (Why would the textbook author put this word in quotes and what do they signify?), only to emerge as “patriots of all New England.” Ask them to think about the title of this textbook. What is the relationship between the kind of narrative presented here and the book’s title? Questions like these sensitize students to reading their textbooks for more than the information they present. It helps them understand their textbook as another kind of historical source, one that also carries a perspective and reflects a particular point of view.

向学生介绍资料 2.42.5(根据他们的阅读水平,您可以选择使用以下资料):(改编或使用原始文献)。提供关于文献来源的明确指导,解释历史学家在研究文献内容之前,会先询问文献的作者、创作背景以及文献创作与所描述事件之间的关系。典型的问题包括:谁撰写(或创作)了这份文献?作者的视角是什么?作者为什么要写这份文献?这位作者可信吗(例如,作者撰写这份文献会得到什么好处或损失什么)?请参阅工具2.2,其中包含针对本课特定文献量身定制的问题。

Introduce students to Sources 2.4 and 2.5 (depending on their reading level, you can choose to use the adapted or the original documents). Provide explicit instruction about sourcing by explaining that historians, even before they study the substance of a document, ask questions about a document’s author, the circumstances of its creation, and the relationship between a document’s creation and the event it describes. Typical questions include: Who wrote (or created) this document? What is the author’s perspective? Why did the author write this? Is this author trustworthy (e.g., what does the author stand to gain or lose by writing this)? See Tool 2.2 with questions tailored to the particular documents in this lesson.

学生完成此工具后,请回到课本摘录,评估其中关于民兵“坚守阵地”的说法。这一说法与两份分别来自对立双方的文件相比,是否站得住脚?为了了解学生对资料来源的推理能力如何发展,请他们解释在评估民兵“坚守阵地”这一说法时,哪些资料来源最可信,哪些资料来源最不可信。这将有助于您评估学生是否能够引用原始资料、将其置于特定语境中并加以佐证。

After students have completed this Tool, return to the textbook excerpt and evaluate its claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground.” How does this claim hold up compared to what two documents, written from opposing sides, say? To see how students’ reasoning about sources develops, ask them to explain which sources are the most and least trustworthy in evaluating the claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground.” This will help you assess whether students can source, contextualize, and corroborate primary documents.

图像

或者,给学生两份他们之前没看过的资料:埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的文件(资料 2.6)和杰里米·利斯特的摘录(资料 2.8)。让他们比较这两份资料,重点关注信息来源如何影响人们对信息可信度的认知。斯泰尔斯究竟是如何获得这些信息的?这些信息在他收到之前经过了多少人之手?我们能确定吗?利斯特记录的事件与实际事件发生之间相隔了多长时间?利斯特在事件发生这么久之后才记录下来,他的动机可能是什么?

Alternately, give students two sources they have not seen: the Ezra Stiles document (Source 2.6) and the excerpt from Jeremy Lister (Source 2.8). Have them compare the two documents, focusing on how sourcing information informs notions of trustworthiness. How, exactly, did Stiles get his information? How many hands did this information pass through before it reached him? Can we know for sure? How much time has passed between the event Lister records and when the actual events happened? What might be Lister’s motivation for recording these events so long after they occurred?


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 采购文件
  • Sourcing documents
  • 了解采购流程及其必要性
  • Understanding sourcing and why it is necessary
  • 确定信息来源的可靠性
  • Determining reliability of sources
  • 质疑叙事性叙述
  • Questioning narrative accounts
  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation

情景三(2-3小时课程):神话如何变成历史?本课将引导学生完成情景一中描述的分析和讨论环节,并重点关注情景二中描述的史料来源。然而,与情景一要求学生完成详细阐述史料可信度要素的最终项目不同,本情景的最终成果是学生探索各种使神话渗入历史记录的因素。

Scenario 3 (2–3 Hour Lesson). How does myth become history? For this lesson, lead students through the analysis and discussion rounds described in Scenario 1, and the focus on sourcing described in Scenario 2. However, rather than asking students to produce a final project in which they detail elements that make a source credible, this scenario culminates in a project in which students explore the various forces that allow myth to creep into the historical record.


CCSS

#8,#9

CCSS

#8, #9


在学生讨论他们认为哪些资料可靠、哪些最不可靠之后,请他们指出可靠和不可靠资料的特点。不可靠资料的动机是什么?这些资料从其不准确之处能获得什么好处?这些不准确之处对哪些受众有吸引力?关于列克星顿事件的某些故事是如何流传下来的?哪些版本可能被记录下来,哪些版本不太可能?提醒他们最初的引导性问题(“列克星顿绿地之战真的是一场战斗吗?”)以及邮票上描绘的民兵英勇对抗英军的形象。现在,请他们完成一个最终项目,例如一篇短文或口头报告,详细阐述促成神话转化为历史的因素和力量。

After students discuss which sources they found most and least reliable, ask them to pinpoint the qualities of reliable and unreliable sources. What were the motives of the unreliable sources? What did these sources stand to gain from their inaccuracies? To which audience did such inaccuracies appeal? How did certain stories about the events at Lexington get passed down? Which versions were likely to be recorded, and which were unlikely? Remind them of the original guiding question (“Was the battle at Lexington Green really a battle?”) and of the notion portrayed in the postage stamp that the Minutemen stood tall against British troops. Now, ask them to complete a final project such as a short essay or oral presentation that details the elements and forces that help turn myth into history.


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 确定信息来源的可靠性
  • Determining reliability of sources
  • 区分神话与历史
  • Distinguishing between myth and history

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源2.1杜利特尔绘画

SOURCE 2.1: DOOLITTLE PAINTING


图像


来源:阿莫斯·杜利特尔 (Amos Doolittle) 1775 年所绘《列克星顿战役,1775 年 4 月 19 日》,公共领域图片,http://images.nypl.org/? id=54426&t=w

Source: The Battle of Lexington, April 19th, 1775, by Amos Doolittle, 1775, public domain image, http://images.nypl.org/?id=54426&t=w

 

 

资料来源2.2 桑达姆绘画

SOURCE 2.2: SANDHAM PAINTING


图像


资料来源:亨利·桑德汉姆著《自由的诞生》,1886年,http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutionary_war/lexington.gif

Source: Birth of Liberty by Henry Sandham, 1886, http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutionary_war/lexington.gif

 

 

来源2.3:美国邮票

SOURCE 2.3: U.S. POSTAGE STAMP


图像


来源:美国邮票,1925年,http://hubpages.com/hub/US-Postage-Stamps-1925

Source: U.S. Postage Stamp, 1925, http://hubpages.com/hub/US-Postage-Stamps-1925

 

 

资料来源2.4:巴克日记(改编

SOURCE 2.4: BARKER DIARY (ADAPTED)


19日凌晨2点,我们开始行军,趟过一条齐腰深的河水;走了几英里后,我们来到一个名叫莱克星顿的小镇。我们听说那里聚集了数百人,他们计划与我们对抗。下午5点,我们到达时,看到大约有200到300人聚集在镇中心的一片空地(莱克星顿绿地)上。

19th. At 2 o’clock in the morning we began our march by wading through a river that came up to our middles; after going a few miles we came to a town called Lexington. We heard there were hundreds of people gathered there who planned to oppose us. At 5 o’clock we arrived and saw a number of people, between 200 and 300, formed in a field (Lexington Green) in the middle of the town.

我们继续行军,时刻准备应对可能发生的袭击,但并没有主动攻击的打算。当我们靠近时,他们开了一两枪。就在这时,我们的士兵未经任何命令,便冲上前去,开火还击,将他们击退。

We continued marching, keeping prepared against an attack though without intending to attack them. On our coming near, they fired one or two shots. As soon as that happened, our men without any orders, rushed in upon them, fired and put them to flight.

我们重新集结,但过程有些困难,因为我们的士兵太过狂暴,根本听不进任何命令。

We regrouped, but with some difficulty because our men were so wild they could hear no orders.


来源:1775 年 4 月 19 日的条目,出自英国陆军军官约翰·巴克中尉的日记;RH Dana, Jr.,《波士顿的英国军官》,《大西洋月刊》,39,1877,389–401

Source: Entry for April 19, 1775, from the diary of Lieutenant John Barker, an officer in the British army; R. H. Dana, Jr., A British Officer in Boston. The Atlantic Monthly, 39, 1877, 389–401.

(原来的)

(Original)

19日,下午2点,我们开始行军,趟过一条很长的浅滩,一直走到我们中间;走了几英里后,我们带上了三四个准备去报信的人;在我们行军路线上的一个叫列克星顿的小镇附近,大约五英里处,我们听说那里聚集了数百人,打算阻拦我们前进;下午5点,我们到达那里,看到大约200到300人聚集在镇中心的一片空地上;我们继续前进,虽然没有主动攻击的打算,但始终保持警惕;然而,当我们靠近他们时,他们开了一两枪,我们的士兵未经命令就冲上去,开火还击,把他们打得落花流水;他们中有几个人被打死,我们无法统计具体人数,因为他们躲到了墙后和树林里;我们第十轻步兵团有一名士兵受伤,其他人没有受伤。然后我们在公共用地集结,但遇到了一些困难,士兵们非常狂野,听不进任何命令;我们在那里等了相当长一段时间,最后才继续前往康科德。

19th. At 2 o’clock we began our march by wading through a very long ford up to our middles; after going a few miles we took three or four people who were going off to give intelligence; about five miles on this side of a town called Lexington, which lay in our road, we heard there were some hundreds of people collected together intending to oppose us and stop our going on; at 5 o’clock we arrived there and saw a number of people, I believe between 2 and 300, formed on a common in the middle of the town; we still continued advancing, keeping prepared against an attack th’o without intending to attack them; but on our coming near them they fired one or two shots, upon which our men without any orders, rushed in upon them, fired and put them to flight; several of them were killed, we cou’d not tell how many, because they were got behind walls and into the woods; We had a man of the 10th light Infantry wounded, nobody else hurt. We then formed on the Common but with some difficulty, the men were so wild they cou’d hear no orders; we waited a considerable time there, and at length proceeded on our way to Concord.

 

 

资料来源2.5:民兵的证词(经过修改

SOURCE 2.5: MINUTEMEN’S DEPOSITIONS (ADAPTED)


我们,纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素(以及 1775 年 4 月 19 日在列克星顿绿地上的其他 32 名男子的名字),均为法定年龄,且均为列克星顿居民,特此作证并声明,4 月 19 日凌晨 1 点或 2 点左右,我们被告知英国士兵正从波士顿向康科德进军。

We Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell (followed by the names of 32 other men present on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775) All of lawful age, and inhabitants of Lexington, do testify and declare, that on April 19th, at about 1 or 2 am, we were told that British soldiers were marching from Boston towards Concord.

我们奉命在镇中心(莱克星顿绿地)的空地集合,我们的队长告诉我们先回家,但要做好听到鼓声就返回的准备。我们进一步作证并声明,大约早上五点,听到鼓声后,我们返回,很快发现一大群军队正向我们行进。

We were ordered to meet at the field at the center of town [Lexington Green], where we were told by our captain to go back home, but to be ready to come back when we heard the beat of the drum. We further testify and declare that about 5 o’clock in the morning, hearing our drumbeat, we returned, and soon found a large body of troops marching towards us.

当时,我们队伍中一部分人正向莱克星顿绿地方向行进,另一部分人已经抵达。我们的人开始分散撤离。当我们背对英军时,他们向我们开火,造成我们多人伤亡。据我们所知,在英军向我们开火之前,我们队伍中没有人向他们开过枪。英军持续射击,直到我们全部撤离。

At that point, some of our group was making its way toward Lexington Green, and others had reached it. Our men began to disperse [leave]. While our backs were turned on the [British] troops, we were fired on by them, and a number of our men were killed and wounded. To our knowledge, not a gun was fired by any person in our group on the British soldiers before they fired on us. The British continued firing until we had all made our escape.


资料来源:列克星顿,1775 年 4 月 25 日,纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素[以及 32 名男子][于 4 月 25 日由 34 名民兵在三名治安法官面前正式宣誓];CC Sawtell。《1775 年 4 月 19 日:第一手资料集》(马萨诸塞州林肯:萨默塞特的 Sawtells,1968 年)。

Source: Lexington, April 25, 1775, Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, [and the 32 men] [Duly sworn to by 34 minutemen on April 25 before three justices of the peace]; C. C. Sawtell. The Nineteeth of April, 1775: A Collection of First Hand Accounts (Lincoln, MA: Sawtells of Somerset, 1968).

(原来的)

(Original)

我们,纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素(以及1775年4月19日在列克星顿绿地的其他32名男子)……均为成年,且均为米德尔塞克斯郡列克星顿居民……特此作证并声明,于本月19日凌晨一两点左右,我们得知……一支正规军正从波士顿向康科德进军……我们感到惊恐,并在我们连队的集合地点集合后,被我们的连长约翰·帕克暂时解散,并被命令随时准备响应鼓声。我们进一步作证并声明,大约早上五点,我们听到鼓声后,便向集合地点走去,很快发现一大群士兵正向我们行进。我们连队的一些成员正赶到集合地点,另一些成员已经到达。此时,连队开始分散,在我们背对士兵的时候……我们遭到他们的射击,我们许多人当场被杀或受伤。据我们所知,在我们遭到正规军射击之前,我们连队中没有人向他们开过枪。他们一直射击,直到我们全部逃脱。

We Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, (Followed by the names of 32 other men present on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775) … all of lawful age, and inhabitants of Lexington, in the County of Middlesex … do testify and declare, that on the nineteenth of April instant, about one or two o’clock in the morning, being informed that … a body of regulars were marching from Boston towards Concord … we were alarmed and having met at the place of our company’s parade, were dismissed by our Captain, John Parker, for the present with orders to be ready to attend at the beat of the drum, we further testify and declare, that about five o’clock in the morning, hearing our drum beat, we proceeded towards the parade and soon found that a large body of troops were marching towards us, some of our company were coming up to the parade, and others had reached it, at which time, the company began to disperse, whilst our backs were turned on the troops, we were fired on by them, and a number of our men were instantly killed and wounded, not a gun was fired by any person in our company on the regulars to our knowledge before they fired on us, and they continued firing until we had all made our escape.

 

 

资料来源2.6:STILES信件(已修改

SOURCE 2.6: STILES LETTER (ADAPTED)


关于枪战开始的描述相对模糊。皮特凯恩少校是一位正直的人,却为了一个错误的事业而战。他至死都坚称是殖民者先开的枪……他并没有说亲眼看到殖民者先开枪。如果他这么说,我会相信他,因为他是一位正直且有荣誉感的人。他明确表示自己没有看到是谁先开的枪;但他认为是美国农民先开的枪。

Descriptions of the beginning of the firing are relatively unclear. Major Pitcairn, who was a good man fighting for a bad cause, insisted to the day he died that the colonists fired first…. He does not say that he saw the colonists fire first. Had he said it, I would have believed him, because he is a man of integrity and honor. He expressly says he did not see who fired first; but he believed the American peasants began the shooting.

据他所述,他骑马来到农民面前,命令他们散开。由于农民们没有立即行动,他便命令部队分散开来,包围殖民者并解除他们的武装。当他转身时,看到墙后一个农民手里拿着一支枪。枪哑火了,没有发射子弹;紧接着,两三支枪响了,击伤了皮特凯恩少校的马和他附近的一名男子。他没有看到那些枪,但他认为这些枪不可能是英军的,一定是美洲殖民者先发动的袭击。

His account is that he rode up to the peasants and ordered them to disperse. Because they did not do so instantly, he ordered his troops to spread out and surround the colonists and disarm them. As he turned, he saw a gun in a peasant’s hand from behind a wall. The gun misfired without firing a bullet; and instantly two or three guns went off, wounding Major Pitcairn’s horse and also a man near him. He did not see those guns, but he believed they could not have been from British troops and that it must have been the American colonists who began the attack.

英军士兵过于急躁,未经命令便开始射击,皮特凯恩少校无力阻止。皮特凯恩神情严肃地向下挥动长杖或长剑,示意士兵停止射击。

The British troops were so eager and impulsive that they began shooting without orders and Major Pitcairn could not keep them from shooting. Pitcairn struck his staff or sword downwards with all seriousness as a signal to his men to stop firing.

皮特凯恩少校将这个故事告诉了普罗维登斯的布朗先生,布朗先生在战斗结束后几天去了波士顿,告诉了塞申斯州长,塞申斯州长又把这个故事告诉了我。

Major Pitcairn told this story to Mr. Brown of Providence who went to Boston a few days after the battle and told Governor Sessions, who then told it to me.


来源:摘自耶鲁学院院长埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的日记,1775 年 8 月 21 日的条目;载于 FB Dexter 编辑的《埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的文学日记》(纽约:查尔斯·斯克里布纳出版社,1901 年)。

Source: From the diary of Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, entry for August 21, 1775; In F. B. Dexter, ed., The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles (New York: Charles Scribner, 1901).

(原来的)

(Original)

在描述枪击事件的起因时,存在着某种模糊不清和含糊不清之处。皮特凯恩少校是一位好人,却投身于一场错误的事业。他至死都坚持认为,是殖民者先开的枪……他并没有说亲眼看到殖民者先开枪。如果他这么说,我也会相信他,因为他是一位正直且有荣誉感的人。他明确表示自己没有看到是谁先开的枪;但他仍然相信是农民先开的枪。他的叙述是这样的:他骑马来到他们面前,命令他们散开;但他们没有立即照做,于是他转身命令部队撤退,以便包围并解除他们的武装。就在这时,他看到墙后一个农民手里拿着一支枪,枪口闪了一下,但没有响起;紧接着,或者很快,两三支枪响了,他发现自己的马被击伤了,他身边的一个人也受了伤。他没有看到这些枪,但他相信这些枪不可能是自己人开的,所以毫不怀疑,断言这些枪是我们的人民开的。于是,他们便开始了进攻。国王军队的鲁莽行事,导致双方展开了一场混乱无序的全面交火,皮特凯恩对此无能为力;尽管他竭力向下挥舞长杖或长剑,示意停止射击。皮特凯恩少校亲自将此事告诉了普罗维登斯的布朗先生,布朗先生在战后几天被抓获,并被押往波士顿;塞申斯总督也曾向我讲述过此事。

There is a certain sliding over and indeterminateness in describing the beginning of the firing. Major Pitcairn, who was a good man in a bad cause, insisted upon it to the day of his death, that the colonists fired first…. He does not say that he saw the colonists fire first. Had he said it, I would have believed him, being a man of integrity and honor. He expressly says he did not see who fired first; and yet believed the peasants began. His account is this—that riding up to them he ordered them to disperse; which they not doing instantly, he turned about to order his troops so to draw out as to surround and disarm them. As he turned, he saw a gun in a peasant’s hand from behind a wall, flash in the pan without going off; and instantly or very soon two or three guns went off by which he found his horse wounded and also a man near him wounded. These guns he did not see, but believing they could not come from his own people, doubted not and so asserted that they came from our people; and that thus they began the attack. The impetuosity of the King’s Troops were such that a promiscuous, uncommanded but general fire took place, which Pitcairn could not prevent; though he struck his staff or sword downwards with all earnestness as a signal to forbear or cease firing. This account Major Pitcairn himself gave Mr. Brown of Providence who was seized with flour and carried to Boston a few days after the battle; and Gov. Sessions told it to me.

 

 

资料来源2.7:列克星教科书版本

SOURCE 2.7: TEXTBOOK VERSION OF LEXINGTON


1775年4月,马萨诸塞州军事总督盖奇将军派遣一支部队前往波士顿附近的康科德,接管那里的军需品。在莱克星顿,一小群“奋战的农民”挡住了英军的去路,他们事先得到了保罗·里维尔的通风报信。“叛军”被命令解散,但他们坚守阵地。英军开火,八名爱国者被击毙。不久之后,骑着骏马的保罗·里维尔便将这起暴行的消息传遍了邻近的殖民地。新英格兰各地的爱国者,虽然人数仍然不多,但已经做好了与英军作战的准备。

In April 1775, General Gage, the military governor of Massachusetts, sent out a body of troops to take possession of military stores at Concord, a short distance from Boston. At Lexington, a handful of “embattled farmers,” who had been tipped off by Paul Revere, barred the way. The “rebels” were ordered to disperse. They stood their ground. The English fired a volley of shots that killed eight patriots. It was not long before the swift-riding Paul Revere spread the news of this new atrocity to the neighboring colonies. The patriots of all of New England, although still a handful, were now ready to fight the English.


资料来源:高中教科书:塞缪尔·斯坦伯格,《美国:自由人民的故事》(波士顿:阿林和培根出版社,1963 年)。

Source: From a high school textbook: Samuel Steinberg, The United States: Story of a Free People (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1963).

 

 

资料来源2.8列表帐户

SOURCE 2.8: LISTER’S ACCOUNT


据我回忆,大约在4月19日凌晨4点,前线5个连队接到装弹命令,我们照做了……在列克星顿,我们看到他们的一个连队列队整齐。海军陆战队副指挥官皮特凯恩少校命令他们散开,但他们似乎并不情愿。他要求我们保持距离,我们也照做了。他们向我们开火后,便跑到墙后躲了起来。我们连队有一名士兵腿部受伤,名叫约翰逊。皮特凯恩少校的马侧腹中弹。我们向他们回礼。在我们离开列克星顿继续行军之前,我相信我们击毙或击伤了7到8名敌人。

To the best of my recollection about 4 o’clock in the morning being the 19th of April the 5 front companies was ordered to load which we did…. It was at Lexington when we saw one of their companies drawn up in regular order. Major Pitcairn of the Marines second in command called to them to disperse, but their not seeming willing he desired us to mind our space which we did when they gave us a fire then run off to get behind a wall. We had one man wounded of our Company in the leg, his name was Johnson, also Major Pitcairn’s horse was shot in the flank; we returned their salute, and before we proceeded on our march from Lexington I believe we killed and wounded either 7 or 8 men.


来源:列克星顿战役中最年轻的英国军官杰里米·利斯特少尉在 1782 年撰写的个人叙述。转载于 J. Lister,《康科德之战》(马萨诸塞州剑桥:哈佛大学出版社,1931 年)。

Source: Ensign Jeremy Lister, youngest of the British officers at Lexington, in a personal narrative written in 1782. Reprinted in J. Lister, Concord Fight (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931).

 

 

工具2.1 图像分析工作

TOOL 2.1: IMAGE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET


说明:请看列克星顿绿地战役的三张图片(资料2.1、2.2、2.3并思考以下问题。

Directions: Look at the three images of the Battle at Lexington Green (Sources 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) and consider these questions.

A) 你注意到每张图片中有哪些细节?

A) What details do you notice in each image?

图像

B) 每张图片有哪些相同的细节?

B) What details are the same in each image?

C) 有哪些细节不同?

C) What details are different?

D) 每幅图中英国军队的形象是如何描绘的?

D) How are the British troops portrayed in each image?

E) 爱国者是如何被描绘的?

E) How are the patriots portrayed?

F)根据这些图片,你认为“列克星顿之战”真的是一场战斗吗?哪些细节让你得出这个结论?

F) Based on these images, do you think the “Battle at Lexington” was really a battle? What details lead you to your conclusion?

G)看完这些图片后,你还有什么新的疑问吗?

G) What new questions do you have after looking at these images?

H) 阅读资料 2.42.5。这些资料支持图像中的哪些细节?

H) Read Sources 2.4 and 2.5. What details in the images do these sources support?

工具2.2 采购工作

TOOL 2.2: SOURCING WORKSHEET


请参阅约翰·巴克的日记条目以及纳撒尼尔·穆利肯和其他民兵的证词(资料 2.42.5)。

Refer to the diary entry of John Barker and the deposition of Nathaniel Mulliken and the other Minutemen (Sources 2.4 and 2.5).

  1. 我们对每份文件的作者了解多少?









  2. What do we know about the author(s) of each of these documents?









  3. 这些信息会如何影响我们对作者的信任度?









  4. How does this information influence whether or not we believe the authors?









  5. 请解释这两种文件的体裁区别:日记与宣誓证词有何不同?









  6. Explain the difference between the genres of these two documents: How is a diary different from a sworn deposition?









  7. 关于巴克的日记,请列举一个你可能相信它的理由。再列举一个你可能不相信它的理由。









  8. Regarding Barker’s diary, provide one reason that you might trust it. What is one reason you might distrust it?









  9. 巴克的日记写于哪一天?从巴克写日记到他所描述的事件发生,中间隔了多长时间?有什么办法可以完全确定吗?这篇日记会不会是几天后才写的?









  10. On what day was Barker’s diary entry written? How much time elapsed between Barker writing in his diary and the event he describes? Is there any way to be absolutely sure? Could this entry have been written days later?









  11. 关于穆利肯的证词,请列举一个你可能相信它的理由。又列举一个你可能不相信它的理由。









  12. Regarding Mulliken’s deposition, provide one reason that you might trust it. What is one reason you might distrust it?









  13. 知道这份证词被送交了殖民地议会代表本杰明·富兰克林,这对你判断其可信度有何影响?
  14. How does knowing that this deposition was sent to the colonial representative in Parliament, Benjamin Franklin, inform your judgment of its trustworthiness?

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.nps.gov/mima

http://www.nps.gov/mima

美国国家公园管理局的这个页面提供了“民兵”国家历史公园的各种资源,包括历史概述、照片和多媒体资料,以及教师的课程材料和专业发展机会。

This National Park Service page offers a variety of resources from “Minute Man” National Historical Park, including a historical overview, photographs and multimedia, and curricular materials and professional development opportunities for teachers.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/apr19.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/apr19.html

该页面由美国国会图书馆运营,提供丰富的原始资料,包括地图、个人文件以及列克星顿绿地冲突发生后所作的原始证词。

This page, run by the Library of Congress, offers rich primary source material, including access to maps, personal papers, and the original depositions taken after the conflict on Lexington Green took place.

http://www.lexingtonhistory.org/

http://www.lexingtonhistory.org/

该网站由列克星顿历史学会运营,提供列克星顿历史建筑的照片和描述,例如巴克曼酒馆,它最出名的是曾是民兵组织的总部。

This site is run by the Lexington Historical Society and offers photographs and descriptions of historic buildings in Lexington such as Buckman Tavern, best known as the headquarters of the Minutemen.

http://www.masshist.org/revolution/lexington.php

http://www.masshist.org/revolution/lexington.php

该网站由马萨诸塞州历史学会维护,提供了列克星顿和康科德事件的历史概述、相关的原始文献以及以美国革命的开端为重点的课程计划。

This site, maintained by the Massachusetts Historical Society, features a historical overview of the events at Lexington and Concord, supporting primary documents, and lesson plans focusing on the onset of the American Revolution.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=74

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=74

本页面由 Ashbrook 中心合作创建,收录了许多与美国革命爆发相关的原始文献,包括托马斯·盖奇将军和约翰·皮特凯恩少校的文献。

This page, created in partnership with the Ashbrook Center, features a number of primary source documents related to the onset of the American Revolution, including the documents of General Thomas Gage and Major John Pitcairn.

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=679#01

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=679#01

该网站由美国国家人文基金会、威瑞森基金会和美国国家人文信托基金会合作创建,其中包含一堂关于美国北方革命的课程。建议的第一项活动聚焦于“震惊世界的枪声”,并运用了多份一手资料。

This site, created by a partnership among the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Verizon Foundation, and the National Trust for the Humanities, features a lesson on the American Revolution in the North. The first of the suggested activities focuses on “The Shot Heard ’Round the World” and utilizes a number of primary sources.

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/why/

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/why/

本页面出自“历史思维很重要”网站,以列克星顿绿地战役为例,展示和解释历史阅读和思考,并收录了历史学家在分析原始资料时大声思考的过程。

This page, featured on the Historical Thinking Matters website, uses the case of the battle at Lexington Green to show and explain historical reading and thinking, and includes historians thinking out loud as they analyze primary source documents.

 

 


第三章

CHAPTER 3


林肯的背景

Lincoln in Context

我无意在白人和黑人之间推行政治和社会平等。两者之间存在生理差异,依我之见,这种差异很可能永远阻碍他们完全平等地生活在一起。既然这种差异不可避免,那么我……赞成我所属的种族拥有优越的地位。(亚伯拉罕·林肯于1858年8月21日在伊利诺伊州渥太华回复斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I … am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (Abraham Lincoln’s reply to Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858)1

图像

塞缪尔·阿尔舒勒。林肯照片。1857年。伊利诺伊州厄巴纳。

可访问http://memory.loc.gov/service/rbc/lprbscsm/scsm0971/001r.jpg

Samuel Alschuler. Photograph of Lincoln. 1857. Urbana, IL.

Available at http://memory.loc.gov/service/rbc/lprbscsm/scsm0971/001r.jpg

今天听来,这些话令人反感,仿佛是早已逝去的时代的遗物,鲜有人为此感到惋惜或浪漫化。它们所宣扬的态度与美国的理想背道而驰,许多读者得知这些话出自亚伯拉罕·林肯之口,定会感到震惊。这位撰写了《解放奴隶宣言》并在葛底斯堡发表过激动人心演讲的人,怎么会说出如此令人作呕的种族优越论呢?

Today these words sound offensive, a relic of bygone times that few mourn or romanticize. They broadcast an attitude that is anathema to American ideals, and many readers will be shocked to learn that they were uttered by Abraham Lincoln. How could the man who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and the stirring words at Gettysburg be responsible for words that convey a racial superiority so distasteful to our modern ears?

这些言论与美国人对亚伯拉罕·林肯作为“伟大的解放者”的认知截然相反。它们促使读者接受对林肯的另一种看法:“白人至上主义者”。事实上,《Ebony》杂志编辑小勒罗内·贝内特(Lerone Bennett, Jr.)早在1968年就发表了一篇著名的文章,题为《亚伯拉罕·林肯是白人至上主义者吗?》。贝内特声称,美国人眼中的林肯只是一个被美化的形象,而林肯实际上是一位白人至上主义者,尽管他的出发点是好的。他是一位保守派政治家,他的所作所为都出于政治需要,并通过种族主义笑话暴露了他的真实面目。

These words fly in the face of Americans’ understanding of Abraham Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator.” They prompt readers to embrace another vision of Lincoln: “White Supremacist.” In fact, Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. made that very call in 1968 with a famous article asking, “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?”2 Bennett claimed that Americans’ Lincoln was a feel-good creation, and that Lincoln was actually a White supremacist, albeit a well-intentioned one. He was a conservative politician who responded only to political necessity, and showed his true colors through racist jokes.

贝内特的文章促使学者们正视林肯的种族主义问题。随后,一场更深入、更广泛的讨论展开,著名历史学家们重新审视并认真思考林肯关于奴隶制和种族的观点。历史学家们不禁思考,这种矛盾(林肯既是《解放奴隶宣言》的起草者,又是白人至上主义的信奉者)究竟是源于一个多世纪后的评判,还是林肯在当时的人们看来也同样自相矛盾?对于1858年听到这些话的人来说,它们究竟意味着什么?

Bennett’s article prompted scholars to confront the question of Lincoln’s racism. A deeper and more extended conversation ensued, with eminent historians revisiting and seriously considering the question of Lincoln’s views on slavery and race. Historians wondered if this paradox (Lincoln as author of the Emancipation Proclamation and as believer in White supremacy) was a matter of judging the man more than a century after the fact, or whether Lincoln also appeared paradoxical to his contemporaries. What did these words mean to those who heard them in 1858?

历史学家致力于在林肯所处的时代背景下理解他的观点,这需要建立各种联系。林肯并非生活在一个真空之中;他的演讲和行动与他所处时代的种种细节紧密相连。“语境” (context )一词源于拉丁语,意为“编织在一起”。历史语境化是指努力理解历史现象——演讲、人物、事件——在它们最初所处的时代背景下的意义,从而用它们自身的语境而非现代视角来理解它们。

Historians worked to understand Lincoln’s views in the context of his own time, and this required making connections. Lincoln did not live in a vacuum; his speeches and actions were deeply intertwined with the particulars of his world. The word context has Latin roots that mean “to weave together.” Contextualizing in history is about working to understand historical phenomena—speeches, people, events—as they existed in their original worlds in order to understand them on their own terms rather than through a modern lens.

我们无法将本章开头的这段话与其发表的场合(与斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯就一个竞争激烈的参议员席位展开的辩论)、辩论地点(伊利诺伊州渥太华,一个反黑人情绪高涨的地方)、听众群体(大多支持道格拉斯,对林肯抱有怀疑)以及林肯和道格拉斯都并非以先知或道德家的身份,而是以候选人的身份争取选票这一事实割裂开来。我们也不能忽视道格拉斯引发这段对话的言论,以及林肯在本章开头摘录之后紧接着所说的话。语境化需要考虑诸多因素,从当时的意识形态到特定的词句序列。但无论如何,它都要求我们认识到历史文物和资料是存在于特定社会环境中的人类建构,因此,它们不能被视为可以独立存在的、无需解释的证据。

We cannot separate the words that began this chapter from the occasion on which they were uttered (a debate with Stephen A. Douglas for a fiercely contested senatorial seat); the location of this debate (Ottawa, Illinois, a hotbed of anti-Black sentiment); the kinds of people who heard the debate (largely supportive of Douglas and suspicious of Lincoln); and the fact that both Lincoln and Douglas addressed their audience not as prophets or moralists but as candidates courting votes. Nor can we ignore what Douglas said to spark this response, or the words Lincoln uttered that immediately follow the excerpt at the start of this chapter. The act of contextualizing requires considering a wide-ranging variety of factors, from the ideologies of the day to a particular sequence of phrases and sentences. But in all cases, it demands that historical artifacts and sources be recognized as human constructions that existed within a particular social world, and as such, cannot be considered as free-floating evidence that speaks for itself.

林肯是种族主义者吗?问题分析

Was Lincoln a Racist? Analyzing the Question

林肯是否是种族主义者这个问题绝非寻常。它将美国最受爱戴的偶像之一与其最令人憎恶的遗产和思想之一联系在一起。单是这个问题就足以引发激烈的争论,而要给出令人信服的答案绝非易事。

The question of whether Lincoln was a racist is no ordinary one. It links one of America’s favorite icons with one of its most reprehensible legacies and ideas. The question alone can elicit passionate responses, and answering it convincingly is neither easy nor quick.

首先,探寻一个人的真实信念并非易事。即便在最好的情况下,这对历史学家来说也并非易事——如何才能真正了解一个人的内心世界?此外,谁的一生不会改变想法呢?一个人今年表达的观点,是否意味着他明年仍然相信?其次,还有前后一致性的问题。一个人是非此即彼——种族主义者还是平等主义者?我们能否分辨一个人的观点是绝对的,还是模棱两可、犹豫不决或不确定的?

First there is the difficulty of uncovering a person’s sincere beliefs. Even in the best cases, this is not an easy task for the historian—how do you get inside a man’s mind? Moreover, who does not change his or her mind over a lifetime? Does expressing something one year mean that the speaker believes it the next? And then there is the matter of consistency. Is a man all or nothing—racist or egalitarian? Can we discern when a man is absolute in his views and when those views may be mixed, tentative, or uncertain?

关于“种族主义者”一词也引发了疑问,因为这个词在林肯时代并不存在。³使用这个词是否不合时宜?我们是否以一种脱离历史的方式,将现代观念强加于过去?种族主义与当今的美国以及我们理解过去有着极其重要的关联。但是,用今天的语境来提出这个问题,会引发历史中的一个核心矛盾:虽然今天的关注点可能会促使人们进行历史研究,但它们不应掩盖或歪曲过去的真相。

Questions also arise about the term “racist,” a word that didn’t exist in Lincoln’s time.3 Is its use anachronistic? Are we imposing modern ideas on past situations in an ahistorical way? Racism has enormous relevance to today’s America and to understanding our past. But phrasing the question in present-day terms raises a central tension in history: While today’s concerns may prompt historical investigations, they should not swamp or distort the realities of the past.

尽管存在这些局限性,历史学家们仍然继续探究这个问题。⁴为了理解其含义并揭示林肯的观点,他们努力在林肯言论的原始语境中进行分析。

Still, even given these limitations, historians have pursued the question.4 And to discern meaning and uncover Lincoln’s views, they strive to analyze his words within their original context.

资料来源

The Sources

哪些史料能够阐明林肯的种族观点?他留下了大量的文献资料。他笔耕不辍,留下了信件、笔记、备忘录、演讲稿、法律论证、政策声明以及其中许多文件的修订稿和草稿。历史学家道格拉斯·威尔逊解释说:“林肯在其总统任期内,几乎对每一项重要事件,以及许多不太重要的事件,都以文字的形式作出了回应。

What sources illuminate Lincoln’s views on race? He produced a huge cache of documentary evidence. He wrote constantly and left behind letters, notes and memos, speeches, legal arguments, policy statements, and revisions and drafts of many of these.5 Historian Douglas Wilson explained that “[Lincoln] responded to almost every important development during his presidency, and to many that were not so important, with some act of writing.”6

此外,还有回忆录式的证词。林肯去世后,他十五年以上的法律合伙人威廉·赫恩登收集了许多认识林肯的人的故事,并撰写了这位昔日合伙人的传记。鉴于赫恩登与林肯私交冷淡,以及撰写这位遇刺总统传记所带来的经济利益,历史学家对这部传记持怀疑态度。尽管如此,赫恩登收集的故事仍然为了解林肯增添了新的证据。历史学家还可以查阅当时所有可用的原始资料来了解林肯(例如报纸、他人的文件、法律文书和判决书)。

Then there is the reminiscent testimony. After Lincoln’s death, William Herndon, his law partner for more than 15 years, collected stories from many who knew him. He then wrote a biography of his former partner. Historians are skeptical of this work, given the cool personal relationship he maintained with Lincoln, as well as the financial opportunities bound up with writing about the slain president. Nevertheless, the stories Herndon collected add to the evidence about Lincoln. Historians can also look at all the source material available from the time to understand Lincoln (e.g., newspapers, other people’s papers, legal briefs and decisions).

即便拥有如此丰富的原始资料,在种族问题上,要准确把握林肯的立场仍然十分困难。历史学家不得不将神话般的林肯与真实的林肯区分开来。林肯传记作者大卫·赫伯特·唐纳德将他描述为一个多面偶像,对不同的群体而言,“他既是共产主义者……又是素食主义者、社会主义者、禁酒主义者、绿背党支持者,也是‘立即建国’运动的倡导者。” 7由于林肯已成为美国理想的“核心象征”,历史学家必须努力区分真实的林肯与象征意义上的林肯。 8他们数十年来一直在从事这项工作,并积累了大量的学术成果。

Even with this large pool of primary sources, it is hard to pin down Lincoln when it comes to race. Historians have had to disentangle the mythic Lincoln from the man. Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald described him as a versatile icon, that for different groups “he was a Communist … also a vegetarian, a socialist, a prohibitionist, a greenbacker, and a proponent of Union Now.”7 Because Lincoln has become the “central symbol” of American ideals, historians have to work to distinguish the real Lincoln from the symbolic.8 They have been doing this work for decades and have produced a vast body of scholarship.

然而,“真正的”林肯仍然难以捉摸。历史学家称他为“令人费解的混合体”,同时代的人则认为他“沉默寡言”且“行事隐秘”。正因如此,林肯研究领域中一本备受赞誉的著作才被命名为《无人知晓的林肯》9 作者理查德·柯伦特指出,林肯研究文献中的某些主题颇具争议,他解释说:“证据错综复杂,相互矛盾,即使是同样公正且博学的学生,对证据的解读也存在分歧。” 10林肯关于种族和奴隶制的观点就是一个典型的例子。

Still, the “real” Lincoln remains elusive. Described as a “puzzling mixture” by historians, “reticent” and “secretive” by his contemporaries, it is with good reason that an acclaimed book in the Lincoln pantheon is called The Lincoln Nobody Knows.9 Author Richard Current described certain topics in the Lincoln literature as controversial, explaining that the “evidence is tangled in contradictions, and equally fair-minded and well-informed students disagree in their interpretation of it.”10 Lincoln’s views on race and slavery exemplify a tangled topic.

下文我们将探讨研究林肯思想的核心四份文献,以及一份有助于我们更全面地理解林肯言论的文献。这些文献涵盖了1841年至1863年这段时期,这段时期是美国历史上一个重大变革的时期。内战爆发前的三十年间,发生了纳特·特纳起义、威廉·劳埃德·加里森创办的报纸《解放者报》、旨在解决各领地奴隶制问题的立法、德雷德·斯科特案剥夺了黑人的公民权,以及从哈珀斯费里到“血腥堪萨斯”骚乱等一系列暴力事件。不同的群体采取了极端立场:一方面,废奴主义者呼吁立即废除奴隶制;另一方面,支持奴隶制的派别则称赞奴隶制是圣经认可的神圣制度。正是在这样的背景下,我们才能更好地理解这些文献。

We discuss below four sources that are central to the study of Lincoln’s views, and a fifth that can help put Lincoln’s words in perspective. These sources span the period 1841–1863, a time of significant change in American history. The three decades preceding the Civil War saw Nat Turner’s Rebellion, the birth of William Lloyd Garrison’s newspaper The Liberator, legislative acts meant to settle the question of slavery in the territories, the Dred Scott decision denying Blacks citizenship, and acts of violence from Harpers Ferry to the riots of “Bloody Kansas.” Different groups adopted extreme positions: On the one hand, the abolitionists called for an immediate end to slavery; on the other, pro-slavery factions praised slavery as a blessed institution sanctioned by the Bible. It is against this backdrop that these sources must be considered.

林肯-道格拉斯辩论。 1858年的林肯-道格拉斯辩论是政治史上最著名的事件之一。伊利诺伊州议员林肯向时任美国参议员斯蒂芬·道格拉斯发起挑战,要求进行一系列辩论。道格拉斯同意在伊利诺伊州的七个城镇与林肯辩论。 11这些辩论场面盛大,包括行进乐队、野餐、烟火和横幅——是19世纪民众的主要娱乐活动。每场辩论都遵循相同的模式:三个小时激动人心的演讲,期间穿插着人群的欢呼、笑声、嘲讽和掌声。 12到场的记者撰写了报道,这些报道刊登在全国各地的报纸上,辩论吸引了全国的关注。

Lincoln-Douglas Debates. The 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates are one of the most famous events in political history. Lincoln, an Illinois state legislator, challenged incumbent U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas to a series of debates. Douglas agreed to debate Lincoln in seven Illinois towns.11 The debates were elaborate events, complete with marching bands, picnics, fireworks, and banners—a major source of entertainment for the 19th-century crowds. Each debate followed the same format: three hours of rousing oratory punctuated by the crowd’s cheers, laughter, jeers, and applause.12 The reporters in attendance filed stories that were printed in newspapers around the country, and the debates drew a national audience.

虽然林肯-道格拉斯辩论通常被写入历史教科书,但教科书的记载主要集中在……人们只关注“外表和声音”,却很少关注所说的话或所表达的观点。13当时辩论的重大议题是什么?

While the Lincoln-Douglas debates are routinely included in history textbooks, their accounts focus on “appearances and voices,” with little if any attention paid to the words spoken or the ideas espoused.13 What were the great issues being debated?

奴隶制向西部领土的扩张是辩论的核心。19世纪50年代,密苏里妥协案被废除,该妥协案宣布北纬36°30′以北的领土永远禁止奴隶制。这一变革的缔造者道格拉斯支持领土主权,使得西部定居者可以自行决定在其所在地区实行奴隶制。新领土可以举行选举,决定其是否为蓄奴州或自由州。1854年的堪萨斯-内布拉斯加法案加剧了围绕西进运动和奴隶制的紧张局势,其中最暴力的事件是“堪萨斯流血事件”。在此背景下,历史学家一致认为,19世纪50年代是一个种族主义盛行的时代,在许多地方,肤色较深的人甚至被剥夺了人性。

The expansion of slavery into the Western territories was at the heart of the debates. In the 1850s, the Missouri Compromise, which declared territories north of the 36°30” latitude forever off limits to slavery, was repealed. Douglas, the architect of this change, supported popular sovereignty in the territories, making it possible for Western settlers to approve slavery in their region. New territories could hold elections to establish their status as slaveholding or free soil. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 escalated tensions over westward expansion and slavery, the most violent manifestation being “Bleeding Kansas.” Given this backdrop, historians agree that the 1850s was a time of virulent racism, when the very humanity of dark-skinned people was denied in many quarters.

“与白人平等”。第一份文件(资料来源3.1)摘自1858年8月21日在伊利诺伊州渥太华举行的第一次辩论,开篇道格拉斯声称林肯(以及“黑人共和党”)支持黑人的公民权和权利,包括投票权、担任陪审员的权利以及当选公职的权利。道格拉斯明确表示,他“赞成将公民权限制在白人男性”,并反对“任何形式的”黑人公民权。他还声称,林肯(与废奴主义者一道)认为“黑人生来就与白人平等”,并且“全能的上帝赋予了他们平等的权利”。

“The Equal of the White Man.” The first document (Source 3.1), an excerpt from the first debate in Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, begins with Douglas’s claim that Lincoln (and the “Black Republican party”) supported Black citizenship and rights, including the right to vote and serve on juries and in elected office. Douglas established his own position as being “in favor of confining citizenship to white men,” and opposed to Negro citizenship “in any and every form.” He went on to claim that Lincoln (alongside the abolitionists) believed that the “Negro was born his equal” and was “endowed with equality by the Almighty.”

道格拉斯在现代读者熟悉的政治竞选背景下,将自己与挑战者进行了对比。虽然19世纪长达三小时的辩论对我们来说可能有些冗长,但我们能够理解竞选演说以及候选人为了赢得听众支持而精心斟酌言辞的做法。

Douglas set up a contrast between himself and his challenger in what is a familiar context to the modern reader: the political campaign. Although a 3-hour 19th-century debate may seem a bit much to us, we can relate to the campaign stump speech and candidates who calibrate their words to win audience approval.

历史学家埃里克·福纳称,指责共和党人亲黑人是19世纪50年代民主党人最常用的“政治武器”。 14尤其是在西部,民主党押注将共和党与“黑人平等”联系起来就能赢得选举。然而,政治光谱两端的人都认为倡导黑人平等无异于政治自杀:支持这一纲领的选民寥寥无几。更普遍的是人们对黑人的仇恨和恐惧,这种情况不仅存在于蓄奴的南方,而是遍及全国各地。

Historian Eric Foner called charges that the Republicans were pro-Negro the 1850s’ most utilized “weapon in the Democrats’ political arsenal.”14 Especially in the West, the Democratic Party bet that linking the Republicans to “Negro equality” would win the Democrats the election. People on all sides of the political spectrum saw advocacy of Negro equality as political suicide: Not enough voters supported this platform. More common were feelings of hate and fear toward Blacks, and this held true in all regions of the country, not just in the slaveholding South.

在那个时代,“种族偏见几乎无处不在”,甚至有四个“自由州”不允许黑人进入其领土。 15表示支持禁止奴隶制,甚至彻底废除奴隶制,并不等同于倡导黑人权利,更遑论平等。白人劳工既不想与奴隶劳动力竞争,也不想与自由黑人争夺有限的工作机会。在19世纪40年代,保持西部地区没有奴隶,更多地与自由土地党的政治纲领有关,而非出于反奴隶制的热情。自由土地党强调,辛勤工作和公平竞争是白人男性实现经济自我提升的关键。保持西部地区没有奴隶劳动力,就能确保这种“公平”竞争,并实现“勤奋和能力终有回报”的愿景。简而言之,那些投票反对在西部地区实行奴隶制的人,往往是出于自身利益,而非出于对奴隶制的道德顾虑。

This was an era when “racial prejudice was all but universal” and four “free” states wouldn’t even let Negroes into their territory.15 Evincing support for the prohibition of slavery, or even abolishing it altogether, did not equate to advocating Negro rights, let alone equality. White workers did not want to compete with slave labor nor compete with free Blacks for available jobs. Keeping the West free of slaves had more to do with the Free Soil Party’s political platform in the 1840s than it did with anti-slavery passion. Free Soilers emphasized hard work and fair competition as the key to economic self-improvement for White men. Keeping the Western territories free of slave labor would ensure this “fair” competition, and fulfill the promise of a land where perseverance and ability paid off. In short, the people who voted down slavery in the territories often did so based on self-interest, rather than moral qualms about slavery.

在第一份文件中,我们听到了斯蒂芬·道格拉斯对这种心态的关注。他的言论令人震惊和不安。很难想象,在这样一个世界里,“我赞成将公民权限制在白人男性,即欧洲出生和血统的男性,而不是赋予黑人、印第安人和其他劣等种族”这样的言论竟然能获得选票。但我们不能忘记参议院选举的结果。道格拉斯赢了。

In the first document, we hear Stephen Douglas’s attention to this mindset. His words jar and upset us. It is hard to imagine a world in which the words “I am in favor of confining citizenship to White men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians and other inferior races” get votes. But we can’t forget the outcome of the Senate election. Douglas won.

我们从林肯的答复中可以听出他对这种意识形态氛围和背景的考量(资料来源3.2)。他刻意与道格拉斯无情地拉拢到自己阵营的那些“小废奴演说家”划清界限,并声明他不会干预已经存在的奴隶制。林肯将重点放在奴隶制向西扩张的问题上。这使得任何反对奴隶制扩张的选民,无论出于何种原因,都能支持林肯。正是林肯的这些举措促使历史学家和古典学家加里·威尔斯称赞林肯“以政治上可控的方式界定了奴隶制问题”。 16 林肯在阐述观点时所做的区分和限定,对于实现这一目标至关重要。

We hear Lincoln considering this ideological climate, this context, in his reply (Source 3.2). He carefully distanced himself from the “little abolition orators” whom Douglas ungraciously dumped in his corner, and stated that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. Lincoln focused on the question of slavery’s westward expansion. This allowed any voter against expansion of slavery, regardless of the reason, to give his support to Lincoln. It is moves like this one that prompted historian and classicist Garry Wills to credit Lincoln with “defining the issue of slavery in politically manageable terms.”16 Lincoln made distinctions and qualified his statements in ways critical to that accomplishment.

自然权利与政治权利。林肯最初否认他有意在种族间推行政治和社会平等,这番言论想必令听众松了一口气,并赢得了掌声。他承认种族间存在生理差异,并认为正是这些差异使得黑人和白人难以实现“完全平等”。在这一点上,他与道格拉斯的观点一致,即在这样的不利条件下,白人人口将占据优势地位。但林肯这番话的前提与道格拉斯的观点截然不同。

Natural Rights and Political Rights. Initially, Lincoln denied any desire to introduce political and social equality between the races, a message that must have drawn relief and applause from his audience. He acknowledged physical differences between the races and credited these with stacking the odds against a society where Blacks and Whites could share “perfect equality.” Here he marked himself in agreement with Douglas that, given such odds, the White population would have the superior position. But the contingency of Lincoln’s remarks stands in contrast to Douglas’s.

林肯在平等问题上采取了不同的策略,他不再强调社会和政治平等,而是强调自然权利和享受劳动成果的权利。他断言,在这些方面,黑人“与白人一样享有同等的权利”。社会权利、政治权利、自然权利、经济权利——所有这些不同类型的权利。林肯为什么要做出这些区分呢?

Lincoln took a different tack on the question of equality, away from social and political equality, toward natural rights and the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor. In these, he asserted, the Negro is “as much entitled … as the White man.” Social, political, natural, economic—all these different kinds of rights. Why did Lincoln make these distinctions?

当时的反黑人意识形态在一定程度上回答了这个问题。林肯构建了一种以黑人奴隶的人性为中心的意识形态,这与那些视奴隶为次等人的观点截然相反。在林肯的律师生涯中,他将抓住案件的核心问题称为“抓住问题的核心”。核心。”林肯在 1858 年对黑人所作表态的核心是,作为人,他们理应享有《独立宣言》中所述的自然权利。

The anti-Black ideology of the day partly answers this question. Lincoln crafted an ideology that focused on the humanity of the Black slave, in contrast to those who saw slaves as subhuman. In Lincoln’s law practice he called getting at the core issue in a case “getting at the nub.” The “nub” of Lincoln’s stated position on Blacks in 1858 was that as human beings, they were due natural rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

林肯对不同类型平等的区分伴随着含糊其辞和谨慎的措辞。虽然他承认两个群体之间存在生理差异,但在其他比较中却含糊其辞。他只认为他们在道德或智力方面“或许”存在差异。即使提出两个种族在道德和智力上是平等的可能性,也与他所处的时代主流观点截然相反。

Lincoln’s distinctions between kinds of equality are accompanied by hedging and careful language. While he does admit a physical difference between the two groups, he equivocates in his other comparisons. There is only “perhaps” a difference in moral or intellectual endowment. Even raising the possibility that the two races were morally and intellectually equivalent would go squarely against the prevailing winds of his day.

在现代人听来,林肯的这些特质和资历或许显得微不足道,甚至具有欺骗性,不过是一个政客为了击败对手而不择手段的伎俩。但就他所处的时代而言,他公开表达的思想比大多数白人(废奴主义者是一个重要的例外)都要进步。林肯在这些辩论中阐述的观点最终团结了共和党。正如历史学家埃里克·福纳所指出的,共和党人

Lincoln’s distinctions and qualifications might seem trivial and even deceptive to the modern ear, the workings of a politico willing to say whatever was needed to best his opponent. But given his world, his publicly expressed ideas were more progressive than those of most other Whites (abolitionists being the significant exception). The views that Lincoln articulated in these debates would unify the Republican party.17 As historian Eric Foner notes, the Republicans

共和党确实制定了一项政策,承认黑人的基本人性,并要求保护民主党人拒绝给予他们的某些基本权利。尽管共和党的种族关系立场存在诸多缺陷,例如接受了许多种族刻板印象,且存在局限性……但它与19世纪50年代的主流观点相悖,并在种族主义社会中被证明是一个明显的政治弱点。18

did develop a policy which recognized the essential humanity of the Negro, and demanded protection for certain basic rights which the Democrats denied him. Although deeply flawed by an acceptance of many racial stereotypes, and limited … the Republican stand on race relations went against the prevailing opinion of the 1850’s, and proved a distinct political liability in a racist society.18

林肯的立场显然不如他那个时代的废奴主义那样激进,但他强调奴隶与生俱来的人性,这一点不容置疑,也是任何最终解放奴隶运动得以实现的必然逻辑。林肯始终关注民意和现行法律,在平等问题上既没有过于强硬,也没有做出过多让步。相反,他采取了一条能够让所有反奴隶制选民都加入他的道路。尽管他在1858年的参议院选举中落败,但他谨慎的策略最终使他在1860年当选总统。

Lincoln’s stance was obviously not as radical as the abolitionism of his day, but its focus on the shared humanity of the slave was non-negotiable and a logical necessity if any eventual emancipation were to be accepted. Always attentive to public opinion and existing law, Lincoln neither pushed too hard nor conceded too much with his stance on equality. Instead, he took a path that allowed anti-slavery voters of all stripes to join him. He might have lost a Senate election in 1858, but his careful path allowed him to be elected president in 1860.

致玛丽·斯皮德的信。这组文件中的第三份文件(资料来源3.3)将我们带回1841年,比林肯-道格拉斯辩论早了15年多。这是一封林肯写给他最亲密的朋友之一约书亚·斯皮德的同父异母妹妹的私人信件。这封信的风格和形式与林肯在参议院辩论中的公开讲话截然不同,它更多地展现了林肯作为政治家的一面,而非他朋友们所熟知的私生活。但如果我们仔细阅读,会发现它与林肯1858年关于奴隶人性的言论一脉相承。尽管如此,这封信中也包含一些令现代读者感到震惊的段落。

Letter to Mary Speed. The third document in the set (Source 3.3) takes us back to 1841, more than 15 years before the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It is a private letter Lincoln wrote to the half-sister of Joshua Speed, one of his closest friends. Different in style and form from Lincoln’s public words at the senatorial debates, it reveals little about Lincoln the politician and more of the private man known by his friends. But if we look closely, we see a consistency with his 1858 statements regarding the humanity of the slave. That said, this letter also includes passages that shock the modern reader.

信中描述了一次乘坐密西西比河轮船的旅程,船上有一群奴隶被沿河贩卖,“永远地与他们的童年故地、朋友、父母、兄弟姐妹分离,”林肯写道,“许多人甚至与他们的妻子和孩子分离。” 但随着信件的继续,它呈现出一种令人费解的对比,引发了关于其确切含义的争论。当林肯回忆起奴隶们被锁链紧紧捆绑在狭小空间里的景象时,他所感触的并非人类的苦难,而是人类的幸福。同样的场景,在任何废奴主义者看来都会激起愤怒和愤慨,却激励林肯写下了这样一段话,这段话可以被解读为“淡化了奴隶制的恐怖,暗示黑人有一种特殊的能力来应对奴役”。 19

The letter describes a journey on a Mississippi riverboat on which a group of slaves were literally being sold down the river, “separated forever,” Lincoln writes, “from the scenes of their childhood, their friends, their fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters, and many of them, from their wives and children.” But as the letter continues, it presents a perplexing contrast that has prompted debate about its exact meaning. As he recalled the spectacle of slaves chained together in close quarters, Lincoln was moved to remark not on human misery, but on human happiness. The same scene that would have provoked fury and outrage in any abolitionist inspired Lincoln to write words that can be read as “ameliorat[ing] slavery’s horror with an inference that blacks have a special capacity to deal with captivity.”19

然而,仔细审视之下,我们发现林肯对奴隶们快乐生活的描述,传达了一种信念,即奴隶与白人拥有共同的人性。奴隶们对自身处境的反应被描述为“一个很好的例子……让我们思考境遇对人类幸福的影响……[并且上帝]使人类最糟糕的境遇也变得可以忍受”。这样的表述或许无法消除现代读者对被描述为快乐开朗的奴隶的不适感。但若将其置于19世纪中期关于奴隶制和黑人的观念背景下考察,这些表述就显得意义重大了。

However, on closer inspection, we see that Lincoln’s description of the slaves’ happy activities communicates a belief that slaves shared a common humanity with Whites. The slaves’ response to their situation is presented as “a fine example … for contemplating the effect of condition upon human happiness … [and that God] renders the worst of human conditions tolerable.” Such phrases won’t still a modern-day reader’s discomfort over enslaved people described as happy and cheerful. But considered in the context of mid-19th-century ideas about slavery and the Negro, they are significant.

1830年以后,围绕奴隶制和西进运动的紧张局势日益加剧。威廉·劳埃德·加里森的废奴主义杂志《解放者》的出版,以及1831年纳特·特纳领导的奴隶起义,加剧了南北之间的分歧。废奴主义者的言论和对奴隶制的抨击,促使支持奴隶制的思想家和派别发展出各种理论来为奴隶制及其永久存在辩护。 20这些理论包括奴隶制实际上对奴隶有利,以及黑人在基因上与白人不同且劣于白人。林肯在1841年的信中既不认同上述任何一种立场,也不认同其他立场。相反,他宣称奴隶也是人,并指出奴隶制是造成“人类最恶劣境况”的罪魁祸首。

After 1830, tensions over slavery and westward expansion grew. Publication of The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison’s abolitionist magazine, and Nat Turner’s slave rebellion in 1831 sharpened the divide between North and South. Abolitionist rhetoric and assaults on the institution of slavery propelled pro-slavery thinkers and factions to develop theories to justify the institution and its permanence.20 These included arguments that slavery actually benefited its captives and that Blacks were genetically different and inferior to Whites. In his 1841 letter, Lincoln embraces neither stance. Rather, he declares slaves to be human beings and slavery responsible for “the worst of human conditions.”

斯皮德的信引发了其他问题。它表明,历史学家们仍在不断探究史料,试图揭示林肯的种族观,却鲜有直接的答案。由于林肯的言辞对奴隶的苦难漠不关心,人们可能会将其解读为冷酷无情,对奴隶制造成的惨重代价漠不关心。然而,在林肯研究专家菲利普·帕鲁丹看来,这恰恰表明我们需要提出更多问题。 21林肯写信给居住在蓄奴州肯塔基的玛丽·斯皮德时,是否因为害怕冒犯她而不愿公开谴责奴隶制?林肯是否如他妻子所说,展现了他真实的本性——对最深切的感受避而不谈?或者,他是否真的认为,在“最恶劣的人类境况”下,黑人所遭受的苦难比其他人要少?帕鲁丹不禁思考,林肯对奴隶苦难的思考是否受到了听众或他自身隐私观念的影响。尽管如此,林肯的冷漠无情并不能改变他言辞背后的核心思想。他认为黑人也是人,奴隶制是一种残酷的制度。

The Speed letter raises other questions. It serves as an example of how historians continue to interrogate sources to uncover Lincoln’s views on race, while finding few prima facie answers. Because Lincoln’s words show little concern for slaves’ suffering, they can be read as callous and unconcerned with the human costs of slavery. However, to Lincoln scholar Philip Paludan, what this shows is the need to ask more questions.21 In writing to Mary Speed, a woman who lived in the slaveholding state of Kentucky, was Lincoln loath to rail against slavery for fear of offending her? Was Lincoln doing what his wife identified as his true nature—talking the least about what he felt the most? Or did he really believe that Blacks suffered less than others in “the worst of human conditions”? Paludan wonders if Lincoln’s musings on the slaves’ suffering were tempered by his audience or his own sense of privacy. Still, the question of Lincoln’s insensitivity doesn’t change the ideas undergirding his words. He considered Blacks as human and slavery as a cruel system.

殖民化。 1862年8月14日,林肯总统在白宫会见了一批自由黑人代表团,这是有史以来第一次邀请黑人到访白宫。林肯与他们握手,并发表了著名的“殖民化演说”(资料来源3.4)。这些事件同时发生令人费解。欢迎黑人进入白宫,是否与鼓励黑人大规模移民的信息相符?

Colonization. On August 14, 1862, President Lincoln addressed a delegation of free Black men, the first ever invited to the White House. Lincoln shook their hands and delivered his “Address on Colonization” (Source 3.4). The pairing of these factors is puzzling. Is welcoming Blacks into the White House consistent with a message of mass Black emigration?

殖民化。非裔美国人移民到其他土地——在本例中是中美洲——以建立一个与他们用强迫劳动、鲜血、汗水和泪水建立起来的社会截然不同的社会。我们怎能不将此视为最极端的种族隔离呢?

Colonization. The emigration of Black Americans to other lands—in this case, Central America—to create a separate society from the one they had built with their forced labor, blood, sweat, and tears. How can we judge this plan as anything but segregation at its most extreme?

自共和国诞生之初,殖民主义思想便已存在。效仿18世纪末英国在塞拉利昂的做法,美国殖民协会于1821年在非洲西海岸建立了利比里亚。19世纪30年代以前,殖民主义是“白人反奴隶制情绪的主要体现”,但黑人对这一政策的反对以及激进废奴主义的兴起改变了这一局面。然而,殖民主义仍然拥有支持者,在战争爆发前的几年里,它作为一种切实可行的政策受到了更多关注。 1861年12月,林肯总统首次在国会发表讲话时,要求国会授权拨款实施一项殖民计划,国会随即拨款60万美元。

The idea of colonization had been around since the birth of the Republic. Following the British example in Sierra Leone in the late 18th century, the American Colonization Society founded Liberia on the west coast of Africa in 1821. Before the 1830s colonization was the “main embodiment of white anti-slavery sentiment,” but Black opposition to the policy and the rise of radical abolitionism changed that.22 However, colonization continued to have its supporters, and the years immediately before the outbreak of war saw increased attention to it as a practical policy. When President Lincoln addressed Congress for the first time in December 1861, he asked them to authorize funds to carry out a colonization plan and Congress responded by appropriating $600,000.

历史学家一致认为,殖民运动从一开始就充满了相互矛盾的目的。一些人支持殖民,因为他们认为这是黑人生活在一个公平社会中的唯一途径——他们认为白人对黑人充满敌意,平等权利和特权永远遥不可及。而对另一些人来说,殖民正如勒罗内·贝内特所说的“白人的梦想”,是一场旨在使美国及其领土摆脱黑人的运动。23还有一些人则将殖民视为传播基督教理念并与遥远地区的人民建立经济联系的机会。

Historians agree that the colonization movement was riddled with conflicting purposes from its start. Some supported the idea because they saw it as the only way that Blacks could live in an equitable society—they judged White America so hostile to Blacks that equal rights and privileges would always be out of reach. For others, colonization was what Lerone Bennett called a “white dream,” a movement to make the United States and its territories free of Blacks.23 Still others saw colonization as the opportunity to spread Christian ideals while forging economic ties with far-off populations.

林肯支持殖民化,但他对此的看法至今仍令历史学家们争论不休,困惑不已。24他为何支持这项政策?林肯对殖民化的支持是否是一种“心理安全阀”,旨在安抚恐惧的白人,让他们相信解放奴隶的同时也会伴随着殖民化?25或者,他是否反对种族融合,因此主张将获得自由的黑人迁走?在他的政治生涯中,他对殖民化的看法是否有所改变?

Lincoln supported colonization, but his views on it continue to divide and perplex historians.24 Why did he support this policy? Was Lincoln’s support for colonization a “psychological safety valve” meant to reassure fearful Whites that emancipation would be accompanied by colonization?25 Or was he against the races mixing and so advocated removing the freedmen? Did he change his mind about colonization during his political career?

哥伦比亚大学的埃里克·福纳认为,林肯在其任期内对殖民化的看法确实发生了变化,《解放奴隶宣言》是一个转折点。林肯最初支持一项与逐步解放计划相配合的殖民化方案,后来彻底放弃了这项政策。 26在其任期之初,林肯主张逐步解放奴隶,补偿奴隶主,并将此与殖民化相结合。在《解放奴隶宣言》颁布以及在海地附近的小岛伊尔阿瓦什(Île à Vache)进行的黑人殖民化实验失败后,他放弃了对这项政策的支持。林肯最终支持了第十三修正案,并将选举权扩大到黑人退伍军人——这表明他能够设想获得自由的黑人成为美国公民。他只花费了国会拨款60万美元中的3.8万美元,这也表明他不再支持殖民化政策。

Columbia’s Eric Foner argued that Lincoln’s views on colonization did indeed change during his administration, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was a turning point. Lincoln went from supporting a colonization program that accompanied a plan of gradual emancipation to abandoning the policy altogether.26 At the beginning of his administration, Lincoln advocated the gradual freeing of slaves, compensating their owners, and coupling this with colonization. Following the Emancipation Proclamation and a failed experiment of Black colonization on Île à Vache, a small island near Haiti, he abandoned his support for the policy. Lincoln eventually endorsed the Thirteenth Amendment and extended the franchise to Black veterans—demonstrating that he could envision freedmen as American citizens. The fact that he spent only $38,000 of Congress’s $600,000 also shows that the colonization policy dropped from his favor.

林肯1862年8月的讲话(资料来源3.4)早于《解放奴隶宣言》,毫无疑问,历史学家们会继续争论其意图和含义。然而,这些讲话确实重申了先前文件中的一些重要观点,包括认为环境条件对人类发展至关重要(他使用了“系统性压迫”一词)。林肯在斯普林菲尔德的讲话中也比之前含糊其辞的表述(即黑人“或许”在智力上与他相当)走得更远,使用了“有才智的黑人”这一表述。即便如此,这篇讲话仍然激怒了许多黑人,不仅因为他们认为林肯否认了他们与白人一样是美国人,还因为他们理解其中一些言论(此处未列出)暗示黑人是内战的起因。 27

Lincoln’s words of August 1862 (Source 3.4) preceded the Emancipation Proclamation, and historians will, no doubt, continue to argue their intent and meaning. However, they do reiterate important ideas present in the previous documents, including a belief that conditions matter to human development (in his use of the term “systematically oppressed”). Lincoln also goes further than his equivocation at Springfield (that Blacks may “perhaps” be his intellectual equal) and uses the phrase “intelligent colored men.” Even so, the address made many Blacks angry, not only for what they saw as a denial that they were as American as the White man, but also for statements (not included here) they understood to mean that Blacks were the cause of the Civil War.27

在内战爆发前的25年里,人们对殖民化的看法和立场发生了变化,而殖民化这一概念与奴隶制和废奴运动密切相关,正如围绕奴隶制的政治运动一样。尽管林肯的立场在早期几十年里或许是进步的,但与19世纪30年代以后激进的废奴主义立场相比,他的立场则显得保守。

Perspectives and stances regarding colonization, an idea intimately linked to slavery and abolition, changed in the 25 years leading up to the Civil War, just as political movements regarding the institution of slavery had. While Lincoln’s stance may have been progressive in earlier decades, it was conservative when compared with the post-1830s radical abolitionist stance.

“我们统治,黑人服侍。”乍看之下,宾夕法尼亚州北部白人作家约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊(资料来源3.5)1863年的这段话似乎与本次研究无关;毕竟,他既没有提及林肯,也没有提及他的政策。然而,罗宾逊的这段话为我们了解当时许多白人的想法、阅读和出版情况提供了一个视角,实际上为读者理解林肯的观点提供了背景。

“Us to Rule, and the Negroes to Serve.” On first reading, the 1863 words of John Bell Robinson (Source 3.5), a White author from the northern state of Pennsylvania, may seem irrelevant to this investigation; after all, they mention neither Lincoln nor his policies. However, Robinson provides a lens into what many Whites were thinking, reading, and publishing at the time, in effect providing the reader with a context for Lincoln’s own views.

在这份文件中,我们看到了一种种族主义意识形态,这种意识形态如此普遍,以至于人们既不认为它令人震惊,也不认为它荒谬绝伦。约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊声称,“黑奴制的优势”远不止于免费劳动力,更是一种神圣的义务。他写道,上帝的计划是让白人“统治,黑人服侍”,并警告说,篡改这些“神圣的安排”将导致永恒的堕落,即便不是世俗的奴役。罗宾逊还提到了殖民,断言任何尝试都将失败,因为黑人“不到五十年就会退回到异教和野蛮状态”。

In this document we see a racialized ideology that was so common it was considered neither shocking nor lunatic. John Bell Robinson claimed that the “advantages of Negro slavery” went beyond free labor and amounted to a sacred obligation. He wrote of God’s plan for White people “to rule, and the Negroes to serve,” warning that tampering with these “holy arrangements” would result in eternal degradation, if not worldly subjugation. Robinson also mentioned colonization, asserting that any attempt would fail, as Negroes “would fall back into heathenism and barbarism in less than fifty years.”

这位北方人的言论与林肯的言论形成鲜明对比,他断言黑人天生低人一等,没有能力统治自己。这些言论为理解林肯生活和演讲的时代背景提供了必要的语境。

This Northerner’s words provide a sharp contrast to Lincoln’s, by asserting that Blacks were inherently inferior and not equipped to rule themselves. They offer a necessary context for understanding the world in which Lincoln lived and spoke.

佐证资料。虽然资料3.13.4是历史学家们持续探讨林肯观点的重要依据,但其他一些文件和事件也反复出现。例如,林肯1862年8月写给《纽约论坛报》编辑霍勒斯·格里利的信经常被用来证明林肯只关心国家统一,而非废除奴隶制。林肯在信中写道:

Corroborating Sources. While Sources 3.1 to 3.4 are fixtures in historians’ ongoing conversations about Lincoln’s views, other documents and events appear repeatedly. For example, Lincoln’s August 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley is frequently used to show that Lincoln was concerned only with the nation’s unity, not with abolishing slavery. Lincoln wrote:

我在这场斗争中的首要目标是拯救联邦,而不是拯救或废除奴隶制。如果我能在不解放任何奴隶的情况下拯救联邦,我会这样做;如果我能通过解放所有奴隶来拯救联邦,我会这样做;如果我能通过解放一部分奴隶而保留另一部分奴隶来拯救联邦,我也会这样做。

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do that and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

这段引文通常到此结束。但要理解林肯的情感,最好读读他接下来说的话:“我在此根据我对公务的看法阐述了我的目的;我无意改变我经常表达的个人愿望,即所有地方的人都能获得自由” 28 [原文强调]。

Often the quote ends there. But to understand Lincoln’s sentiments, it is wise to read what he goes on to say: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free”28 [emphases in original].

在讨论林肯的观点时,有两个事件反复出现:弗里蒙特将军于1861年8月30日发布的解放密苏里州奴隶的公告,以及戴维·亨特将军于1862年下令解放南卡罗来纳州、佐治亚州和佛罗里达州的奴隶。有人认为,林肯否决弗里蒙特的命令,表明他无意解放奴隶。也有人认为,这更多地体现了林肯作为政治家和律师的身份:弗里蒙特没有宪法赋予的权力发布这样的命令,而林肯甚至认为自己的权力也仅限于此。重要的是,他尊重自己作为法律执行者的地位,而非法律制定者的地位。此外,鉴于首席大法官坦尼领导的最高法院——该法院曾表现出对支持奴隶制和反黑人意识形态的友好态度——林肯对任何可能牵涉其中的举措都保持警惕。

Two events also appear repeatedly in a discussion of Lincoln’s views: General Fremont’s August 30, 1861, proclamation freeing the slaves in Missouri, and General David Hunter’s 1862 order to emancipate slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Some argue that when Lincoln overrode Fremont’s orders, he signaled a lack of intent to free the slaves. Others argue that this was more about Lincoln the politician and lawyer: Fremont didn’t have the constitutional power to issue such an order and Lincoln did not see even his own power as extending that far. What mattered here was his respect for his position as executor of the laws, not as writer of the same. Additionally, given Chief Justice Taney’s Supreme Court—a court that had shown itself friendly to both pro-slavery and anti-Black ideology—Lincoln was wary of any moves that might involve them.

对林肯进行历史语境分析并不能提供现成的答案。历史研究教导我们包容复杂性,而不是回避它。我们可以肯定的是,林肯的思想远比任何简单的标签都复杂得多。历史学家詹姆斯·莱克尔(James Leiker)探讨了林肯思想中的差异和矛盾——其他历史学家则会强调林肯散文中的细微差别和区别。29一个绝对的标签,无论是种族主义者还是平等主义者,都无法概括历史证据。

Contextualizing Lincoln doesn’t provide pat answers. Historical inquiry teaches us to tolerate complexity, not shy away from it. One thing we can say for sure is that Lincoln’s ideas are more complex than any simple label. Historian James Leiker talks about the discrepancies and contradictions in Lincoln’s thought—other historians would emphasize the nuances and distinctions in Lincoln’s prose.29 An absolute label, racist or egalitarian, doesn’t begin to capture the historical evidence.

更有意义的是,我们可以将林肯视为处于种族主义和平等主义这两个绝对概念之间的一个连续体。我们可以说,与他同时代的白人相比,林肯在当时并不算种族主义者,或者至少比其他人要温和得多。我们也可以说,像美国内战前的大部分白人(如果不是全部的话)一样,林肯实际上是一个种族主义者。

It’s more instructive to think about Lincoln as existing along a continuum between these two absolutes of racist and egalitarian. We could assert that compared to his White peers, Lincoln was not racist for his time, or certainly less so than others. We could also assert that like most if not all Whites in antebellum America, Lincoln was in fact a racist.

这就引出了我们问题的第二个答案。林肯时代的美国是一个种族歧视极其严重的社会。讨论废奴运动和奴隶制问题上的地区分歧,可能会让我们误以为种族歧视仅限于某个特定地区和人群。但从历史角度解读这些文献,我们会发现,在那个时代,黑人的人性被剥夺,人们用一些在今天看来令人作呕的理论来为奴隶制的野蛮行径辩护。林肯是种族主义者吗?这要视情况而定。他所处的时代是吗?是的,而且比我们想象的要严重得多。

Which leads us to the second answer to our question. Lincoln’s America was an incredibly racist place. Discussing the abolitionist movement and regional splits over slavery can lull us into a false sense that racism was confined to a particular region and population. But reading these documents historically reveals a world in which Blacks were denied their humanity, and people justified the barbarism of slavery with theories that repel us today. Was Lincoln a racist? It depends. Was his time? Yes, more than we would like to think possible.

为什么要教授林肯与种族问题?

Why Teach About Lincoln and Race?

认识到背景的重要性。我们无法避免对过去做出评判。每位历史老师都遇到过这样的学生:他们冲进来,兴奋地分享着“惊人发现”:“杰斐逊蓄奴!哥伦布割掉了土著人的耳朵!” 这些学生急于分享这些信息,证明他们过去的老师不仅遗漏了部分历史,还美化了这些人物,把恶棍塑造成了英雄。但是,我们应该如何评判过去及其人物呢?是用我们今天的标准,还是用他们那个时代的标准?虽然这个问题没有标准答案,但历史要求我们了解这两者之间的区别。

Learning That Context Matters. We can’t help judging the past. Every history teacher has had the student who rushes in to share the revelation, “Jefferson owned slaves! Columbus cut off the ears of natives!” Such students are eager to share this information that proves that their past teachers not only left out part of the story, they whitewashed these figures and turned knaves into heroes. But how should we judge the past and its actors? By our contemporary standards or by the standards of their day? While there is not one way to answer this question, history demands that we know the difference between the two.

林肯所处的世界是怎样的?与我们的世界截然不同,如此迥异,以至于如果我们像比尔和泰德那样去体验一次“精彩冒险”,可能会感觉自己像外星人。亚伯拉罕·林肯正是在这样一个陌生的世界里生活、演讲和领导。如果我们想要从历史的角度思考林肯的言论,就必须避免轻易下结论,并探究其历史背景。这些言论的背景和目的是什么?他的言论和思想与同时代人的言论和思想有何异同

What was Lincoln’s world like? Very different from our own, so different that we might feel like aliens if we were to take an “excellent adventure” Bill-&-Ted style. It was in this foreign world that Abraham Lincoln lived, spoke, and led. If we are to think historically about Lincoln’s words, we must resist easy judgments and ask questions about historical context. What were the setting and purpose of these words? And how do his words and ideas compare to those of his contemporaries?30

对历史学家而言,语境是历史推理的核心。让学生了解林肯关于种族的观点和言论,能为他们提供绝佳的机会,让他们真正理解“语境化”的意义所在。

For historians, context lies at the epicenter of historical reasoning. Engaging students in Lincoln’s views and words on race presents them with powerful opportunities to learn what “contextualizing” is all about.

分析关于种族的观点。种族问题在我们的课堂上常常被一带而过或忽略。不可否认,种族对于理解美国历史至关重要——以种族之名犯下的罪行、为这些罪行辩护的意识形态、强化这些意识形态的制度等等,不胜枚举。种族主义影响着我们国家的发展历程以及我们民族的形成。这些文献旨在引导学生深入思考种族化的观点,并促使他们进行分析。

Analyzing Ideas About Race. Race is a topic too often glossed over or omitted in our classrooms. There is no denying that race matters to understanding the American past—the crimes that have been done in its name, the ideologies that justified those crimes, the institutions that reified those ideologies—the list goes on. Racism has influenced how our country has developed and who we have become. These documents engage students in thinking specifically about racialized ideas and prompt analysis of them.

了解到现在听起来冒犯的言论在其他时代可能被视为进步的,这对我们的学生来说是一个重要的教训:不要轻易想当然地认为你对某句话的理解与说话者的本意相同。有些学生不愿承认种族问题对美国研究的重要性,而另一些学生则对此不屑一顾。用不恰当的词语来形容种族主义,无异于本土种族主义的又一例证。深入探讨林肯的言论及其目的,能够帮助双方更好地分析这个既敏感又至关重要的话题。

Learning that statements that sound offensive to our ears could have been judged progressive in another time opens up an important lesson for our students: Don’t be too quick to assume that the meaning you ascribe to a statement is the same one the speaker intended. Some students are reluctant to acknowledge that race is important to the study of America. Others quickly dismiss an untoward word as just more home-grown racism. A focused consideration of Lincoln’s distinctions and purposes gives both groups practice in analyzing this volatile and necessary topic.

放慢学生的阅读速度。这些文献需要分析。它们要求学生放慢阅读速度,并注意用词和细微差别。例如,在与道格拉斯的辩论中,林肯用一个容易被忽略的“或许”一词,就为历史学家开启了一个充满可能性的世界。林肯是一位精于措辞的作家;仔细研读他的文字,能让学生明白限定词和区别对意义的重要性。如果学生只是浅尝辄止地阅读这些文献,而不去思考是谁在向谁陈述什么,他们就会错过历史背景的关键方面,也无法令人满意地回答问题。理解林肯意味着放慢速度,探究他为什么使用这个词而不是另一个词。这种对文本的细致关注,对于理解历史以及我们如何了解过去至关重要。

Slowing Down Student Reading. These documents demand analysis. They require that students read slowly and pay attention to word choice and nuance. In a single “perhaps,” an easily missed equivocation in the debate with Douglas, historians open up a world of possibilities. Lincoln was a careful wordsmith; examining his words is an opportunity for students to see how qualification and distinctions matter to meaning. If students read these documents on a surface level, without wondering who is presenting what to whom, they will miss key aspects of historical context and won’t be able to answer the question satisfactorily. Understanding Lincoln means slowing down and asking why he used one word and not another. This careful attention to text is central to understanding history and how we know what we know about the past.

挑战学生的误解。当学生们思考这些话语发表的时代背景时,他们对过去的错误认知便会受到挑战。尽管伊利诺伊州是北方的一个自由州,但种族优越论在皮奥里亚仍然盛行。学生们了解到,种族偏见并非仅限于南方,而是在南北战争前的整个美国都普遍存在。

Challenging Student Misconceptions. As students consider the world in which these words were uttered, flawed ideas about the past are challenged. Although Illinois was a Northern free state, racial superiority still played very well in Peoria. Students learn that racial prejudice was not limited to the South, but existed throughout antebellum America.

关于文献证据的误导性观点也将受到质疑。约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊的文献(资料来源3.5)并未提及林肯。学生们常常因此推断,这份文献与林肯的观点无关。然而,罗宾逊的文献为我们了解当时人们的思考、阅读和出版情况提供了一个至关重要的视角。通过研读罗宾逊的文字,学生们将能够更好地理解林肯在19世纪50年代和60年代的观点光谱中所处的位置。

Misleading ideas about documentary evidence will also be challenged. John Bell Robinson’s document (Source 3.5) makes no mention of Lincoln. Students often infer that this makes it irrelevant to questions about Lincoln’s views.31 But Robinson provides a vital lens for what people of this time were thinking, reading, and publishing. By examining Robinson’s words, students will be better able to locate Lincoln on a spectrum of opinion in the 1850s and 1860s.

你会如何使用这些材料?

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一(2-3小时课程):林肯是种族主义者吗?引导学生参与“结构化学术争论”,让他们分析文献资料,以回答核心问题并得出合理的结论。32

Scenario 1 (2–3 Hour Lesson). Was Lincoln a racist? Engage students in a “Structured Academic Controversy” where they analyze documents in order to answer the focus question and craft a warranted conclusion.32


CCSS

#1,#10

CCSS

#1, #10


课程开始时,引用林肯1858年在斯普林菲尔德的讲话(资料3.2),但省略所有身份信息(说话者、年份、地点)。询问学生他们会如何描述这段文字,以及他们还想了解哪些信息。如果换成其他说话者、时间或地点,他们的描述还会一样吗?然后向他们展示身份信息。当他们发现这些话是林肯说的时,会感到惊讶吗?

Open the lesson with Lincoln’s words from Springfield in 1858 (Source 3.2), but omit any identifying information (speaker, year, place). Ask students how they would describe the passage and what else they want to know about it. Would they describe it the same way given any speaker, time, and place? Then share with them the identifying information. Are they surprised to find out that these are Lincoln’s words?

告诉学生他们将要探究的问题:林肯是种族主义者吗?回顾活动结构(工具 3.1)。将学生分成四人一组,每组分配两组,一组持 A 方观点(林肯是种族主义者),另一组持 B 方观点(林肯不是种族主义者)。分发包含文件分析表(工具 3.2 )的资料包(资料3.1-3.5 )。学生两人一组,阅读资料,查找并记录支持其立场的证据。他们还应记录在此过程中产生的任何问题。小组收集完支持其立场的证据后,四人一组重新集合。第一组分享他们的立场和支持证据,另一组倾听并复述该立场。然后交换角色。提醒学生,在这个倾听和复述的活动中,他们不是在辩论。之后,学生放弃各自的立场,讨论对这个问题的最佳答案,即由证据和学生在活动中带来的其他背景知识支持得最好的答案。

Tell students that they will be investigating the question, Was Lincoln a racist? Review the structure of the activity (Tool 3.1). Organize students into groups of four and assign one pair in each group Side A (Yes, Lincoln was a racist) and the other pair Side B (No, Lincoln was not a racist). Pass out document packets (Sources 3.13.5) with the document analysis chart (Tool 3.2). In pairs, students work through the documents, finding and recording evidence for their assigned position. They should also record any questions that arise during this process. After pairs have gathered evidence for their position, they will convene in groups of four. The first pair shares their position and the supporting evidence while the other pair listens in order to restate that position. Then reverse the roles. Remind students that in this listening and restating activity, students are not debating. After this, students give up their assigned positions and discuss the best answer to the question, that is, the one that is best supported by the evidence and other background knowledge students bring to the activity.

图像

最后,要求学生独立撰写问题答案,并使用文献证据支持他们的答案。

Finally, ask students to write independent answers to the question, using documentary evidence to support their answers.


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 质疑消息来源
  • Questioning sources
  • 来源背景
  • Contextualizing sources
  • 综合多个账户
  • Synthesizing multiple accounts
  • 仔细聆听
  • Listening carefully

情景二(2-4小时课程):在情景一的基础上,加入以下问题:我们应该如何评判过去?

Scenario 2 (2–4 Hour Lesson). Extend Scenario 1 by including the question, How should we judge the past?


CCSS

#1

CCSS

#1


将第二个核心问题纳入课程,让学生在讨论完关于林肯与种族的问题后思考这个问题。他们可以单独写一段来专门探讨这个问题,也可以将其融入到对第一个问题的分析中。

Include this second focal question in the lesson and have students consider it after they have addressed the question about Lincoln and race. They can write a separate paragraph explicitly addressing this question or include it in their written analysis of the first.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 质疑消息来源
  • Questioning sources
  • 来源背景
  • Contextualizing sources
  • 综合多个账户
  • Synthesizing multiple accounts
  • 仔细聆听
  • Listening carefully

情景三(1 小时课程)。阅读理解:观察、实践、理解。运用示范和指导练习,教授学生如何将历史资料置于特定语境中理解。

Scenario 3 (1 Hour Lesson). Reading for context: see it, do it, know it. Use modeling and guided practice to teach students how to contextualize historical sources.


CCSS

6–8 #6

11–12 #1

CCSS

6–8 #6

11–12 #1


引入“林肯是否是种族主义者”这个问题,并解释道:“你们将尝试回答这个问题,但要做到这一点,你们必须仔细阅读历史证据。”确保每个学生都有一份资料3.2,然后示范历史学家如何阅读和分析这份文献。首先,大声朗读资料信息和导言,并随时停顿以引发问题和评论。然后,大声朗读文献内容,再次停顿以分析短语、质疑术语或表达疑问。这种示范的目的是“大声思考”,让学生看到历史学家在阅读过程中进行的积极提问和思考。33

Introduce the question of whether Lincoln was a racist with the explanation, “You will be trying to answer this question, but to do so you must carefully read the historical evidence.” Make sure every student has a copy of Source 3.2, then model how a historian would read and approach this document. First read aloud the source information and head note, pausing to generate questions and comments. Then read the contents of the document aloud, again pausing to parse a phrase, question a term, or wonder aloud. The point of this modeling is to “think aloud,” and make visible for students the active questioning and thinking that historians do as they read.33

通读完这份文献后,请列出你为了建立历史背景而提出的问题。这些问题包括:林肯当时在对谁讲话?他发表这篇演讲的目的是什么?当时还发生了什么其他事情?1858年伊利诺伊州的种族态度和法律状况如何?这些因素如何影响了林肯的用词和演讲内容?阅读本章的历史文献分析文章将有助于你回答这些问题。但是,也请列出你目前没有答案的问题;这些问题可以用来向学生展示,仔细阅读历史文献意味着要明确自己的知识盲点,并找出理解文献所需的信息。

After you work through the document, identify what questions you asked to establish the historical context. These will include: Who was he talking to? What were his purposes in making this speech? What else was happening at the time? What were existing racial attitudes and laws in Illinois in 1858? How might these factors have shaped Lincoln’s word choice and message? Reading this chapter’s historiographical essay will help you answer these questions. However, also include questions you don’t have answers for; these may be used to show students that closely reading a historical document means specifying your ignorance and identifying what you need to know to understand it.

将历史背景定义为“想象当时的场景”,并向学生展示一些引导他们理解文献背景的初步问题(工具 3.3)。阐明以下几点,以便进行背景分析:

Define historical context as “imagining the setting,” and show students some beginning questions to contextualize documents (Tool 3.3). Make the points that in order to contextualize:

  1. 历史学家利用他们对当时当地情况的了解来帮助理解文献;
  2. Historians use what they know about the time and place to help them understand the document;
  3. 历史学家会提出他们不知道的事情以及他们还需要知道的事情,以便更全面地理解这份文件。
  4. Historians ask questions about what they don’t know and what else they need to know, to try to more fully understand the document.

在您的指导下,学生可以运用您示范的阅读方法来帮助他们理解和分析文献3.3。您可以引导他们完成这个过程,例如提出“阅读历史文献时我们应该首先做什么?”之类的问题,并鼓励他们在文献的关键位置提出相关问题。完成指导练习后,学生可以作为家庭作业独立阅读和分析文献3.5

With your guidance, students can use the reading practices you modeled to help them to understand and analyze Source 3.3. You can walk them through this process by asking questions such as “What should we do first when reading a historical document?” and prompting them to use contextualizing questions at key places in the document. After this guided practice, students can read and analyze Source 3.5 independently as homework.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 来源背景
  • Contextualizing sources
  • 理解语境化及其必要性
  • Understanding contextualization and why it’s necessary

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源3.1:道格拉斯演讲(修改版)

SOURCE 3.1: DOUGLAS’S SPEECH (MODIFIED)


注:1858年,亚伯拉罕·林肯与斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯竞选美国参议员席位。两人进行了七场公开辩论,引起了全国关注。以下节选自道格拉斯在1858年8月21日于伊利诺伊州渥太华举行的首场辩论中对林肯的讲话。

Note: In 1858 Abraham Lincoln ran against Stephen A. Douglas for a seat in the U.S. Senate. The two engaged in a series of seven public debates that attracted national attention. The following is an excerpt from Douglas’s address to Lincoln in their first debate at Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858.

如果你渴望黑人获得公民权,如果你渴望允许他们进入本州与白人共同生活,如果你渴望他们拥有与你们平等的投票权,并赋予他们担任公职、担任陪审员和裁决你们权利的资格,那么就请支持林肯先生和支持黑人公民权的黑人共和党。然而,我本人反对任何形式的黑人公民权。我相信这个政府是由白人建立的,是为了白人及其后代的永远利益,我赞成将公民权限定于白人,即欧洲出生和血统的人,而不是赋予黑人、印第安人和其他劣等种族。

If you desire Negro citizenship, if you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the White man, if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible to office, to serve on juries, and to judge your rights, then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the Negro. For one, I am opposed to Negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made … by White men, for the benefit of White men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to White men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians and other inferior races.

林肯先生效仿那些四处在学校和教堂地下室演讲的废奴主义小演说家,朗读了《独立宣言》中“人人生而平等”的段落,然后质问道:怎能剥夺黑人上帝和《独立宣言》赋予他们的平等权利?他和他们坚持认为,黑人的平等权利受到上帝律法的保障,并在《独立宣言》中得到明确阐述……我并不质疑林肯先生真诚地相信黑人生来就与他平等,因此是他的兄弟,但就我个人而言,我不认为黑人与我平等,并且断然否认他是我的兄弟……

Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence, that all men were created equal, and then asks how can you deprive a Negro of that equality which God and the Declaration of Independence awards to him. He and they maintain that Negro equality is guaranteed by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence…. I do not question Mr. Lincoln’s conscientious belief that the Negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother, but for my own part, I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother….

林肯认为,黑人生来就与他和你们平等,这是全能的上帝赋予他们的平等权利,任何人间的法律都不能剥夺他们的这些权利……然而,我不相信全能的上帝曾打算让黑人与白人平等……数千年来,黑人一直是地球上的一个种族,在这漫长的岁月中,无论他们身处何地,无论他们迁徙到哪里,无论他们被带到哪里,他们都处于劣势。他们属于一个劣等种族,也注定永远处于劣势地位。

[Lincoln] holds that the Negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights…. Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the Negro to be the equal of the White man…. For thousands of years the Negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position.


来源:摘自道格拉斯在 1858 年 8 月 21 日于伊利诺伊州渥太华举行的与林肯的第一次辩论中的讲话。引自 DE Fehrenbacher 编辑的《亚伯拉罕·林肯演讲与著作,1832–1858》(纽约:美国图书馆,1989 年),第 504–505 页。

Source: Excerpt from Douglas’s address to Lincoln in their first debate at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858. Cited in D. E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1832–1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), 504–505.


词库

WORD BANK


合格的——符合资格,适合被选中

eligible—qualified, fit to be chosen

后代——子孙后代,未来世代

posterity—descendents, future generations

演说家——演讲者

orators—speechmakers

剥夺——否认,抢劫

deprive—deny, rob

断言——声明

asserted—stated

尽责的——谨慎的、道德的

conscientious—careful, moral

捐赠——提供的,赠予的

endowed—provided, gifted


资料来源3.2:林肯道格拉斯回应(修改版)

SOURCE 3.2: LINCOLN’S RESPONSE TO DOUGLAS (MODIFIED)


注意:请阅读林肯在伊利诺伊州渥太华辩论中对道格拉斯的回应,他是如何仔细比较黑人和白人的。

Note: Read how Lincoln carefully compares Blacks and Whites in his reply to Douglas at the Ottawa, Illinois, debate.

在此我要声明……我无意直接或间接干预各州现有的奴隶制。我相信我没有合法权利这样做,也无意这样做。我无意在白人和黑人之间推行政治和社会平等。两者之间存在生理差异,依我之见,这种差异很可能永远阻碍他们完全平等地生活在一起。既然这种差异不可避免,那么我和道格拉斯法官一样,都赞成我所属的种族享有优越的地位。我从未说过任何相反的话,但我认为,尽管如此,没有任何理由可以剥夺黑人享有《独立宣言》中所列举的所有自然权利,即生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。我认为,他与白人一样,理应享有这些权利。我同意道格拉斯法官的观点,黑人在许多方面都不如我——肤色肯定不如我,道德或智力方面或许也不如我。但在吃自己劳动所得的权利上,他与我平等,与道格拉斯法官平等,与所有活着的人平等。

I will say here … that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the White man. I agree with Judge Douglas [that the Negro] is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread … which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.


来源:摘自亚伯拉罕·林肯于 1858 年 8 月 21 日在伊利诺伊州渥太华对斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯的答复。引自 DE Fehrenbacher 编辑的《亚伯拉罕·林肯演讲与著作,1832–1858》(纽约:美国图书馆,1989 年),第 512 页。

Source: Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s reply to Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858. Cited in D. E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1832–1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), 512.


词库

WORD BANK


倾向——偏好、倾向

inclination—preference, tendency

相反——不同

to the contrary—different

有权——应得的,允许的

entitled—due, permitted

列举——列出

enumerated—listed

捐赠基金——馈赠

endowment—gifts


资料来源3.3:玛丽·斯皮德的修改版)

SOURCE 3.3: LETTER TO MARY SPEED (MODIFIED)


注:阅读林肯写给他朋友的关于在河船上看到奴隶的信件。

Note: Read Lincoln’s words to his personal friend about seeing slaves on a riverboat.

顺便一提,船上有一个很好的例子,可以用来思考境遇对人类幸福的影响。一位绅士在肯塔基州的不同地方买了十二个黑人,准备把他们带到南方的一个农场。他们六个六人一组,用铁链锁在一起。每个人的左手腕上都套着一个小铁环……这样,这些黑人就像鱼线一样被串了起来。在这种情况下,他们即将永远离开童年的家园、朋友、父母、兄弟姐妹,许多人甚至还要离开妻子和孩子,从此沦为奴隶……然而,在所有这些令人痛苦的境遇中……他们却是船上最快乐、最开朗的人。其中一个黑人,因为对妻子过于溺爱而被卖掉,他几乎不停地拉着小提琴;其他人则每天都跳舞、唱歌、讲笑话、玩各种纸牌游戏。上帝确实能让人类最糟糕的境遇变得可以忍受。

By the way, a fine example was presented on board the boat for contemplating the effect of condition upon human happiness. A gentleman had purchased twelve Negroes in different parts of Kentucky and was taking them to a farm in the South. They were chained six and six together. A small iron clevis was around the left wrist of each … so that the Negroes were strung together precisely like so many fish upon a trotline. In this condition they were being separated forever from the scenes of their childhood, their friends, their fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters, and many of them, from their wives and children, and going into perpetual slavery … yet amid all these distressing circumstances … they were the most cheerful and apparently happy creatures on board. One, whose offense for which he had been sold was over-fondness for his wife, played the fiddle almost continually; and the others danced, sung, cracked jokes, and played various games with cards from day to day. How true it is that … [God] renders the worst of human conditions tolerable.


来源:摘自亚伯拉罕·林肯于1841年9月27日写给好友玛丽·斯皮德的信,引自《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》(第一卷)。(安娜堡:密歇根大学数字图书馆制作服务部,2001年),第260页。可访问http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

Source: Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Mary Speed, a personal friend, September 27, 1841, cited in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Vol. 1). (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services, 2001), 260. Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/


词库

WORD BANK


沉思——考虑、反思

contemplating—considering, reflecting on

永久的——持久的,永久的

perpetual—lasting, permanent


资料来源3.4:关于殖民化的演讲

SOURCE 3.4: ADDRESS ON COLONIZATION


注:对获释黑人进行殖民的想法早在18世纪就已出现。许多反对奴隶制的白人积极支持殖民计划,他们认为只有将黑人迁徙到其他地方,才能实现真正的自由和平等。亚伯拉罕·林肯长期以来都赞同这一想法,1862年,国会拨款用于一项殖民计划。以下内容摘自林肯于1862年8月14日在白宫向一群自由黑人发表的《关于殖民的演说》。

Note: Colonization of freed Blacks was an idea that had been around since the 1700s. Many Whites who opposed slavery actively supported colonization, maintaining that true freedom and equality could be realized only by relocating the Black population. Abraham Lincoln long favored the idea, and in 1862 Congress allocated a sum of money for a colonization program. The following is from Lincoln’s “Address on Colonization,” delivered to a group of free Black men at the White House on August 14, 1862.

你们种族为何要被殖民?又该殖民何处?……如果我们一开始就选择那些不自由、思想被奴役蒙蔽的人,那么我们一开始的条件就非常匮乏。如果聪明的有色人种……能够参与其中,或许就能取得更大的成就。至关重要的是,我们一开始就必须选择那些能够像白人一样思考的人,而不是那些长期遭受压迫的人……我考虑建立殖民地的地方是中美洲……那里的土地对任何民族来说都非常优越,拥有丰富的自然资源和诸多优势,尤其因为那里的气候与你们的故乡相似——因此非常适合你们的体质。

Why … should the people of your race be colonized, and where? … If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men … would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as White men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed…. The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America…. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land—thus being suited to your physical condition.


资料来源:林肯于1862年8月14日在白宫向一群自由黑人发表的《殖民化演说》,引自《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》 (第5卷)。(安娜堡:密歇根大学数字图书馆制作服务部,2001年),第371-372页。可访问http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

Source: Lincoln’s “Address on Colonization” delivered to a group of free Black men at the White House on August 14, 1862, cited in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Vol. 5). (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services, 2001), 371–372. Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/


词库

WORD BANK


智力——思维

intellects—minds

受压迫——以残酷、不公平的方式被统治

oppressed—dominated in a cruel, unfair way


资料来源3.5:约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊

SOURCE 3.5: JOHN BELL ROBINSON


注:请阅读约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊关于种族和种族关系的理论。罗宾逊是一位居住在宾夕法尼亚州的白人。

Note: Read John Bell Robinson’s theories about race and race relations. Robinson was a White man who lived in Pennsylvania.

上帝创造他们是为了让他们成为有用的奴隶,也要求我们这样使用他们。如果我们背信弃义,任由他们自生自灭,我们就把他们重新变成野蛮人。我们的天父创造我们是为了统治,而让黑人服侍。如果我们……为了人类的福祉和祂自身的荣耀而背弃祂神圣的安排,篡改的律法,我们必将覆灭,永远蒙受耻辱,甚至沦为其他文明国家的臣民……将所有黑人安置在他们原先的土地上几乎是不可能的,因此永远无法实现,这片绿色的地球上也没有其他地方适合他们。把他们送到其他任何地方都是极其残忍和野蛮的行为。即使能把他们全部安置在非洲海岸,不到五十年,他们就会重新回到异教和野蛮的状态。

God himself has made them for usefulness as slaves, and requires us to employ them as such, and if we betray our trust, and throw them off on their own resources, we reconvert them into barbarians. Our Heavenly Father has made us to rule, and the Negroes to serve, and if we … set aside his holy arrangements for the good of mankind and his own glory, and tamper with his laws, we shall be overthrown and eternally degraded, and perhaps made subjects of some other civilized nation…. Colonization in their native land of all the Negroes would be so nearly impracticable, that it will never be done, and no other spot on this green earth will do for them. It would be the height of cruelty and barbarism to send them anywhere else. If they could all be colonized on the coast of Africa, they would fall back into heathenism and barbarism in less than fifty years.


来源:摘自 JB Robinson,《奴隶制与反奴隶制的图景:从道德、社会和政治角度考虑黑人奴隶制的优势和黑人自由的好处》(费城,1863 年),第 42 页。

Source: Excerpt from J. B. Robinson, Pictures of Slavery and Anti-Slavery: Advantages of Negro Slavery and the Benefits of Negro Freedom Morally, Socially, and Politically Considered (Philadelphia, 1863), 42.


词库

WORD BANK


重新转换——改回

reconvert—to change back

篡改——干扰、破坏

tamper—interfere, mess

永远降级——永远受损,地位降低

eternally degraded—forever damaged, lowered in rank

异教——非基督教的状态,异教主义

heathenism—un-Christian state of things, paganism


工具3.1 结构学术争议方向

TOOL 3.1: STRUCTURED ACADEMIC CONTROVERSY DIRECTIONS


问:亚伯拉罕·林肯是种族主义者吗?

Question: Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist?

 

 

A面

Side A

B面

Side B

是的,林肯是种族主义者。

Yes, Lincoln was a racist

不,林肯不是种族主义者。

No, Lincoln was not a racist

  1. 合作伙伴准备
    1. 寻找证据支持你的论点。构建你的立场。
  2. Partners Prepare
    1. Find evidence to support your side of the argument. Craft position.
  3. 立场陈述
    1. A 方以文本中的证据为佐证,阐述其立场。
    2. B面重申了A面的内容,并令A面满意。
    3. B 方以文本中的证据为佐证,阐述了他们的观点。
    4. A面重申了B面的内容,B面对此表示满意。
  4. Position Presentation
    1. Side A presents their position using supporting evidence from the texts.
    2. Side B restates to Side A’s satisfaction.
    3. Side B presents their position using supporting evidence from the texts.
    4. Side A restates to Side B’s satisfaction.
  5. 共识建立
    1. 放弃角色。
    2. 运用佐证材料,就该问题达成共识(或者至少澄清你们的分歧所在)。
    3. 思考这个问题:



      我们应该如何评判过去的人?
  6. Consensus-Building
    1. Abandon roles.
    2. Build consensus regarding the question (or at least clarify where your differences lie), using supporting evidence.
    3. Consider the question:



      How should we judge people from the past?

工具3.2 :SAC文件分析

TOOL 3.2: SAC DOCUMENT ANALYSIS CHART


林肯是种族主义者吗?

Was Lincoln a Racist?

 

 

立场:是的,林肯是种族主义者。

Position: YES, Lincoln was a racist.

文档:

Document:

证据1:

Evidence 1:

 

 

文档:

Document:

证据二:

Evidence 2:

 

 

文档:

Document:

证据3:

Evidence 3:

 

 

文档:

Document:

证据4:

Evidence 4:

 

 

关于这些资料和观点,您有什么疑问?

What questions do you have about these sources and ideas?

 

 

林肯是种族主义者吗?

Was Lincoln a Racist?

立场:不,林肯不是种族主义者。

Position: NO, Lincoln was not a racist.

 

 

文档:

Document:

证据1:

Evidence 1:

 

 

文档:

Document:

证据二:

Evidence 2:

 

 

文档:

Document:

证据3:

Evidence 3:

 

 

文档:

Document:

证据4:

Evidence 4:

 

 

关于这些资料和观点,您有什么疑问?









What questions do you have about these sources and ideas?










共识:

CONSENSUS:

 

 

写作提示

WRITING PROMPT

林肯是种族主义者吗?

Was Lincoln a racist?

 

 

请用证据(引用、信息)来支持你的答案。如果你愿意,也可以对问题进行评价。

Use evidence (quotes, information) to support your answer. Include an evaluation of the question if you wish.

 

 

工具3.3 背景问题

TOOL 3.3: CONTEXT QUESTIONS


  1. 该资料是何时何地撰写或制作的?
  2. When and where was this source written or produced?
  3. 在撰写本文时,还有哪些其他事件发生?
  4. What else was happening at the time this was written?
  5. 它为何被制作出来?
  6. Why was it produced?
  7. 当时与现在有何不同?又有哪些相同之处?
  8. What was different back then? What was the same?
  9. 如果从当时的人们的角度来看,那会是什么样子?
  10. What would it look like through the eyes of someone who lived back then?

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutbiovideo.html

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutbiovideo.html

该网站由亚伯拉罕·林肯历史数字化项目维护,拥有丰富的资料,重点介绍林肯担任总统之前的生平。资源包括解读性文章、教学计划、学术讲座视频、原始档案、地图和图片。用户可以按格式或主题浏览这些资源。

Maintained by the Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project, this site has a wealth of materials focused on Lincoln’s life prior to his presidency. Resources include interpretive essays, lesson plans, videos of scholarly lectures, primary source archives, maps, and images. These can be browsed by format or theme.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/institute/lincoln.html

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/institute/lincoln.html

这个位于吉尔德·莱尔曼研究所的资源门户网站,汇集了关于林肯的教学和学习资源,其中包括大量珍贵且简明扼要的林肯学术论文和视频讲座。尤其值得关注的是线上展览“林肯与解放宣言”,该展览包含注释、关键文件的图片和文本。

This gateway to resources on teaching and learning about Lincoln, housed at the Gilder Lehrman Institute, includes invaluable (and brief!) scholarly essays on Lincoln and video lectures. Of special interest is the online exhibition “Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation,” which includes explanatory notes, and images and transcripts of key documents.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/alhome.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/alhome.html

林肯先生的虚拟图书馆

Mr. Lincoln’s Virtual Library

美国国会图书馆收藏了大量与林肯及其时代相关的文献、乐谱和纪念品。

The Library of Congress’s large collection of manuscripts, sheet music, and memorabilia regarding Lincoln and his times.

http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/index.html

http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/index.html

在马里兰大学的支持下,“自由民与南方社会项目”利用国家档案馆的文献,通过参与者的讲述,生动地展现了解放运动的戏剧性场面。其中,详尽的“内战期间解放大事记”(http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/chronol.htm)尤其值得关注。

Supported by the University of Maryland, the Freedmen and Southern Society Project uses documents from the National Archives to vivify the drama of emancipation through the words of its participants. Of special interest may be the detailed “Chronology of Emancipation during the Civil War” (http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/chronol.htm).

http://www.abrahamlincoln.org/

http://www.abrahamlincoln.org/

林肯研究所的这个主页直接链接到其六个网站,这些网站分别聚焦于林肯生平的不同方面。解读性文章和精选的原始资料使读者能够轻松地深入研究林肯的某个主题。

This home page for the Lincoln Institute links directly to its six websites focused on different aspects of Lincoln’s life. Interpretive essays and selected primary sources make it easy to pursue a Lincoln topic in depth.

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/introduction.html

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/introduction.html

由安纳伯格传媒制作的本次专业发展研讨会,探讨了林肯在废除奴隶制中所扮演的角色。研讨会将通过视频讲座、原始资料和引导性问题,引导参与者思考林肯关于非裔美国人和奴隶制的观点。

Produced by Annenberg Media, this professional development workshop explores Lincoln’s role in the ending of slavery. Participants are prompted to consider Lincoln’s beliefs on African Americans and slavery using a video lecture, primary sources, and guiding questions.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

这里提供由罗伊·P·巴斯勒领导的团队编辑的多卷本经典著作《亚伯拉罕·林肯全集》的在线可搜索版本。

Here, the multivolume classic The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by a team led by Roy P. Basler, is available online in searchable form.

 

 


第四章

CHAPTER 4


哥伦布日:1892年,而非1492年

Columbus Day: 1892, Not 1492

杰克·施耐德

Jack Schneider

图像

1912年,华盛顿特区联合车站,哥伦布日纪念活动。由贝恩新闻社出版。可访问以下网址获取:http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.11303/

Columbus Day Memorial Celebration, Union Station, Washington, DC, 1912. Published by Bain News Service. Available at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.11303/

1892年夏天,本杰明·哈里森总统正全力以赴争取连任。7月21日,他发布公告,宣布设立一个新的全国性节日:“发现日”(参见资料4.1)。为了纪念克里斯托弗·哥伦布,学校、教堂和其他集会场所都应庆祝这一节日,并将他视为“进步与启蒙”的象征。一个多世纪后,哥伦布日成为美国仅有的两个以个人命名的节日之一(另一个是马丁·路德·金博士的诞辰纪念日)。

In the summer of 1892, President Benjamin Harrison was locked in a fierce campaign for reelection to a second term. On July 21, he issued a proclamation calling for a new national holiday: “Discovery Day” (see Source 4.1). To be observed in schools, churches, and other places of assembly, Discovery Day honored Christopher Columbus as a symbol of “progress and enlightenment.” Over a century later, Columbus Day is one of only two American holidays (along with the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) that honor an individual.

虽然前几代人将哥伦布视为一位无畏的探险家和勇于冒险的勇士,但如今的历史学家往往对他评价不高。柯克帕特里克·塞尔的《克里斯托弗·哥伦布与天堂的征服》将哥伦布的遗产描述为暴力、殖民主义、贪婪和种族主义的代名词。霍华德·津恩的《美国人民的历史》销量超过百万册,他将这位航海家描绘成一个一心只想在印度淘金的偏执狂。津恩笔下的哥伦布未能找到他所追求的财富,于是诉诸残暴,最终走上了贩卖人口的道路,他写道:“让我们以圣三位一体的名义,继续贩卖所有能卖的奴隶。” ¹

While previous generations viewed Columbus as an intrepid explorer and courageous risk-taker, today’s historians tend to be less generous. Kirkpatrick Sale’s Christopher Columbus and the Conquest of Paradise describes Columbus’s legacy as one of violence, colonialism, greed, and racism. Howard Zinn, whose A People’s History of the United States has sold well over a million copies, casts the mariner as a monomaniacal fiend driven by the pursuit of gold in the Indies. Not finding the riches he sought, Zinn’s Columbus resorted to brutality and eventual human trafficking, writing: “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.”1

唉,哥伦布近来境遇不佳。就像前几代人传唱的关于他“航行于蔚蓝大海”的童谣一样,历史学家对哥伦布的负面描述也深入人心。上世纪90年代,南达科他州和加利福尼亚州伯克利市甚至废除了哥伦布日,分别将其更名为“美洲原住民日”和“土著人民日”。

Alas, Columbus has not fared well of late. Like the rhyme about his sailing “the ocean blue” for previous generations, historians’ bleak portrait of Columbus has penetrated popular consciousness. South Dakota and the city of Berkeley, California, even abrogated Columbus Day in the 1990s, renaming it “Native American Day” and “Indigenous People’s Day,” respectively.

鉴于哥伦布的声望日渐下降,我们最近完成的一项研究中,高中历史系学生在阅读哥伦布日法令原文时感到愤慨也就不足为奇了。²这些学生被要求阅读一系列文件,并将每份文件置于历史背景中进行分析。在阅读过程中,学生们讨论了他们认为这些文件的内容以及他们想到的任何其他关联。

Given Columbus’s falling stock, it is hardly surprising that in a recent study we completed, high school history students bristled when reading the original Columbus Day decree.2 These students were asked to read a series of documents and to place each in historical context. As they read through the texts, students talked about what they thought the documents were about and any other associations that came to mind.

当讲到哈里森的“发现日”宣言时,一些学生立刻开始抨击哥伦布。雅各布是一名高中生,正在上美国历史AP课程,他是这样开始发言的:

When they reached Harrison’s “Discovery Day” proclamation, some students wasted no time getting down to Columbus-bashing. Jacob, a high school student in an Advanced Placement U.S. history class, began his comments thus:

首先映入眼帘的是哥伦布是“进步与启蒙”的先驱,这当然是一种看待他的方式,但据我所知,他的目标并非完全高尚。他的目的无非就是发财致富,找到通往印度的航路,证明地球不是平的。

The first thing that jumps out is that Columbus is a pioneer of “progress and enlightenment,” which was certainly one way of looking at it, but from what I’ve learned, his goals were not entirely noble. Just get rich, whatever. Find a way to the Indies. Show that the earth wasn’t flat.

此外,雅各布抱怨说,这份文件“赞扬哥伦布虔诚的信仰”。哥伦布“自称是真正的基督徒,但他同时也俘虏和折磨印第安人,所以他可能并不像这份文件里说的那样高尚。”当被问及是否还有其他想法时,雅各布回答说:“更糟糕的是,它竟然变成了一个我们应该敬仰的节日!”

Further, Jacob complained, the document “praises Columbus for his devout faith.” Columbus “claimed to be a true Christian, but he also captured and tortured Indians, so he wasn’t maybe as noble as this is having him be.” Asked if anything else occurred to him, Jacob responded: “And the fact that it’s becoming a holiday that we’re supposed to revere, that’s even worse!”

雅各布的反应在这群聪明伶俐、能言善辩的高中生中很常见。他凭借着已有的知识,直击探险家的要害,展现出一种在某些人看来或许是“批判性思维”的思考方式。毫无疑问,这的确是批判性的思考。

Jacob’s response was common among this group of bright, articulate high school students. Drawing on background knowledge, Jacob went right at the explorer, engaging in what some might view as “critical thinking.” Critical, without a doubt.

事实证明,哈里森总统的公告与1492年,甚至与哥伦布本人都关系不大。尽管雅各布才华横溢、口才出众,但他却错过了这份文件的真正含义。

President Harrison’s proclamation, it turns out, has little to do with 1492, or even Columbus himself. Capable and articulate as he was, Jacob had missed the document’s real story.

历史学家是如何解读它的?

How Did Historians Read It?

当被问及同一份文件的内容时,一群历史学博士生给出了截然不同的理解,他们列举了诸如以下几点:

Asked what the same document was about, a group of doctoral candidates in history saw it quite differently, citing such things as:

  • “将英雄殿堂扩展到包括以前不受欢迎的人。”
  • The “expansion of the heroic pantheon to include former undesirables.”
  • “为了在城市中心赢得选票,竟然厚颜无耻地诉诸超级英雄。”
  • A “shameless appeal to superheroes in order to gain votes in urban centers.”
  • “战后美国泛白人主义的开端。” 3
  • “The beginning of Pan-Whiteness in post-bellum America.”3

与高中生们不同,高中生们只关注哥伦布的名字,并且始终没有改变立场,而研究生们则将这份文件视为身份政治和传统选举活动的体现。事实上,历史学家们几乎没有提及哥伦布。为什么这两个群体会对同一份文本产生如此截然不同的解读呢?

Unlike the high school students, who alighted on Columbus’s name and never budged, the graduate students viewed the document as a reflection of identity politics and good old electioneering. In fact, the historians hardly mentioned Columbus at all. How was it that the two groups saw such different things in the same text?

最简单的解释是,这些历史学家只是更了解美国历史。这当然没错,但仅此而已。这些年轻的历史学家研究过诸如法国殖民者和突尼斯阿拉伯民族主义者之间的性别关系、巴黎围城战与德国统一的关系,以及阿里去世后伊斯兰教的教义分裂等课题,他们对美国历史上的这一时期并没有足以改变其文本解读的史实知识。然而,他们确实拥有一种解读文献的“历史方法”,一种对文献证据的重视,这种重视对于熟悉历史的人来说几乎是常识。这种重视为未经训练的读者打开了一个封闭的世界。

The easy answer would be to say that the historians simply know more American history. Obviously that’s true, but only to a point. Having studied such topics as gender relations among French colonialists and Arab nationalists in Tunisia, the relationship between the Siege of Paris and German unification, and doctrinal schisms in Islam after Ali’s death, the young historians possessed no factual knowledge of this time period in American history that would change their readings of the text. What they did possess, however, was a “historical approach” to the document, an orientation to documentary evidence that almost seems like common sense to those practiced in it. This orientation unlocks a world closed to untutored readers.

高中生们关注的是这份文献最显著的特征——克里斯托弗·哥伦布这个极具争议的人物及其在舆论场上的跌宕起伏——而历史学家们则采用了不同的方法。对他们而言,解读历史文献意味着将史料置于审判席上,要求它们揭示真相或谬误。诚然,历史学家们精通运用学科证据准则和论证规则。然而,他们的方法本身并不复杂。事实上,他们所做的一些最深刻的事情,恰恰也是最基本的。

While the high school students responded to the document’s most pronounced feature—the polarizing figure of Christopher Columbus and his changing fortunes in the court of public opinion—the historians employed a different approach. For them, reading a historical document meant putting sources on the stand and demanding that they yield their truths or falsehoods. To be sure, the historians were experts at employing disciplinary canons of evidence and rules of argument. Still, nothing about their approach was particularly complicated. In fact, some of the deepest things they did were also the most basic.

想想他们的开场白。当历史学家们坐下来研究这份文件时,他们的第一句话大概是:“好的,这是1892年。”

Consider their opening gambit. When historians sat down with the document, their first words were something along the lines of: “Okay, it’s 1892.”

这其实只是一个简单的举动——承认哈里森宣言并非凭空而来、飘渺不定的言论。对历史学家而言,这份文件是一件保存于特定时空的文物,是历史上独一无二的时刻。对他们来说,这一时刻并非指1492年,甚至也不是2002年,而是指1892年。

A simple move, really—a recognition that the Harrison proclamation was not a free-floating utterance echoing from the ether. To the historians, the document was an artifact located in a unique time and place, a moment in history unlike any other. For them, this moment was not about 1492, or even 2002. It was about 1892.

这就立即引出了一个问题:1892 年意味着什么?

Which immediately raises the question: What does 1892 mean?

哈里森总统的背景

President Harrison in Context

在历史学家看来,哈里森总统的公告与其说是关于哥伦布,不如说是关于1892年。因此,他们的研究重点集中在19世纪末,而非15世纪。哈里森为何要表彰哥伦布?他对这位探险家怀有某种个人情谊吗?哈里森是否视哥伦布为榜样?或者,这一举动背后是否隐藏着其他不为人知的原因?想必其中必有缘由。

To the historians, President Harrison’s proclamation was more about 1892 than it was about Columbus. Consequently, their questions focused on the late 19th century rather than the 15th. Why would Harrison have honored Columbus? Did he harbor some personal affinity for the explorer? Did Harrison consider Columbus a role model? Or was there something more to this move that doesn’t immediately strike the eye? Surely, there must have been some reason.

历史学家们集思广益,回忆起他们对那个时代历史背景的些许记忆(要知道,他们中没有一个人是美国历史专家)。事实上,他们大多数人只记得高中和大学本科概论课上学过的内容。在思考19世纪90年代的美国时,他们试图回忆起一些重大事件、主题和人物:进步时代、边疆的关闭、弗雷德里克·杰克逊·特纳、民粹主义、威廉·詹宁斯·布莱恩、“金十字架”演讲——这些都是任何一本高中教科书中都会提到的内容。但随着历史学家们对那个时期的持续讨论,他们最终不可避免地谈到了移民问题。这时,他们恍然大悟。

The historians brainstormed what little they could remember about the era’s historical context (recall that none was an expert in American history). Most, in fact, could remember only what they had covered in high school and undergraduate survey courses. In thinking about the United States in the 1890s, they tried to recall major events, themes, and people: the Progressive Era, the closing of the frontier, Frederick Jackson Turner, Populism, William Jennings Bryan, the “Cross of Gold” speech—the kinds of references found in any high school textbook. But as the historians continued to talk about the period, they inevitably arrived at the topic of immigration. When they did, light bulbs clicked on.

19世纪末,美国正经历一场翻天覆地的变革。前所未有的移民浪潮一夜之间改变了这个国家(参见资料4.4)。在1880年至1910年的30年间,1800万新移民涌入美国。他们是一群与众不同的移民——用当时的术语来说,他们是“斯拉夫人”、“阿尔卑斯人”、“希伯来人”、“伊比利亚人”或“地中海人”。他们大多来自欧洲,但并非此前大多数美国移民来自的欧洲。他们来自更东、更南的地方。他们肤色黝黑,说着陌生的语言。他们的信仰也与本土的新教徒截然不同

At the end of the 19th century, the United States was getting a makeover. Unprecedented waves of immigration transformed the country overnight (see Source 4.4). In the 30 years between 1880 and 1910, 18 million newcomers came to America’s shores. And they were immigrants of a different breed—in the terminology of the time they were “Slavs,” “Alpines,” “Hebrews,” “Iberics,” or “Mediterraneans.” They were from Europe, mostly, but not the Europe most American immigrants had come from previously. They were from farther east and farther south. They were swarthy and spoke strange languages. They worshipped differently from the indigenous Protestant majority.4

这些新移民中人数最多的是天主教徒。19世纪80年代初,美国约有30万意大利人,几乎全部是天主教徒。到1910年,这个数字已达到200万,而当时美国的总人口为9200万。随着意大利人融入此前三十年间形成的爱尔兰裔美国人社群,城市天主教徒逐渐成为一股足以左右选举的政治力量。尽管他们的数量庞大且不断增长,但他们仍然是一个饱受歧视的少数群体。

The most numerous of these new arrivals were Catholics. At the beginning of the 1880s, there were about 300,000 Italians in the United States, almost all of them Catholic. By 1910 that number had reached 2 million out of a population of 92 million Americans. As the Italians joined the Irish American community that had formed during the previous three decades, urban Catholics became a political bloc with the potential to swing elections. But though their numbers were strong and growing, they remained a much-maligned minority.

整个 19 世纪,天主教徒都遭到攻击,被视为非美国的“天主教徒”,被指责对罗马的忠诚超过了对美国的忠诚。内战前兴起的“一无所知”运动,其数十名成员进入国会,该运动的成立很大程度上是为了“抵制罗马教会的阴险政策和所有其他外国影响” (参见资料 4.6)。

Throughout the 19th century, Catholics were attacked as un-American “papists,” accused of being more loyal to Rome than to the United States. The Know-Nothing movement that sprang up before the Civil War and sent dozens of its members to Congress was founded in large part in order “to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence”5 (see Source 4.6).

天主教徒无论走到哪里都面临偏见和怀疑,在学校和工作场所尤其如此。反对天主教移民的人士中不乏知名人士,例如电报发明者塞缪尔·F·B·莫尔斯和宗教领袖、哈丽雅特·比彻·斯托的父亲莱曼·比彻。事实上,莫尔斯曾撰写一篇题为《外国阴谋:美国自由的阴谋》的小册子,警告美国新教徒,梵蒂冈主教及其在美国的代理人——爱尔兰和意大利移民——正密谋控制他们。

Catholics faced prejudice and suspicion everywhere they went, most egregiously in schools and at the workplace. Opponents of Catholic immigration included well-known figures like Samuel F. B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph, and Lyman Beecher, a religious leader and father of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Morse, in fact, penned a tract titled “Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States,” which warned Protestant Americans of a plot to control them hatched by the Vatican bishops and their American agents—Irish and Italian immigrants.

当他们的孩子在公立学校遭受欺凌,被迫接受带有新教倾向的课程时,天主教徒便创建了独立的教会学校体系作为回应。尽管天主教学校没有获得公共资金,但它们与公立学校的显著区别依然存在:它们使用天主教版圣经而非钦定版圣经,授课教师通常为神职人员,而且为了方便移民学生,教学语言往往是外语。因此,天主教学校被描绘成反美主义的温床。

When their children were harassed in the public schools and subjected to a Protestant-leaning curriculum, Catholics responded by creating separate systems of parochial schools. But even though the Catholic schools received no public money, they remained visibly different from public schools: They used a Catholic bible rather than the King James version, classes were often led by members of the clergy, and instruction was frequently in foreign languages for the benefit of the immigrant pupils. As a result, Catholic schools were portrayed as breeding grounds of anti-Americanism.

在职场上,情况也大同小异。像许多19世纪的移民一样,这些天主教新来者往往极度贫困,甘愿接受更低的工资。因此,他们被指责拉低了美国本土工人的收入水平。当罢工导致城市工厂停工时,工厂主经常雇用天主教徒充当罢工破坏者,为他们提供临时工作,但这反而进一步加剧了他们在本土工人眼中的污名化。无论他们是爱尔兰人、意大利人还是其他族裔,天主教徒常常被灌输一种观念:他们不属于这里。

In the workplace the story was much the same. Like many 19th-century immigrants, the Catholic newcomers were often desperately poor and willing to work for reduced wages. Consequently, they were scorned for driving down the earning power of American-born workers. When strikes shut down urban factories, owners frequently turned to Catholics as strikebreakers, providing them with temporary employment but further stigmatizing them in the eyes of the native-born. Whether they were Irish, Italian, or some other ethnic origin, Catholics often got the message that they did not belong.

不出所料,天主教徒渴望提升自身的社会和经济地位,并加班加点地表达他们的爱国情怀。许多天主教徒,尤其是意大利人和葡萄牙人,大力宣扬他们与哥伦布——这位新大陆的发现者和虔诚的天主教徒——之间的联系。1878年《康涅狄格天主教报》的一篇社论简洁明了地指出:没有人比这位伟大而高尚的人——虔诚、热忱、忠贞的天主教徒……克里斯托弗·哥伦布——更值得“铭记和感激”。 6

Not surprisingly, Catholics were eager to improve their social and economic standing, and worked overtime to express their patriotism. Many Catholics, particularly Italians and Portuguese, promoted their connection to Columbus, discoverer of the New World and a devout Catholic. An 1878 editorial in the Connecticut Catholic put it succinctly: No one was more deserving “of grateful remembrance than the great and noble man—the pious, zealous, faithful Catholic … Christopher Columbus.”6

为了进一步提升自身形象,美国天主教徒设立了哥伦布纪念日,以他的名字命名学校和医院,并寻求教皇正式册封他为圣人。圣母大学在其主楼委托创作了十二幅壁画,以纪念“天主教徒哥伦布”。1882年,也就是哈里森总统宣布封圣的十年前,康涅狄格州纽黑文的天主教徒创立了哥伦布骑士团,该骑士团最终发展成为美国最大的泛天主教兄弟会组织。骑士团成员认为,作为哥伦布的天主教后裔,他们“理应享有我们信仰之人做出如此伟大发现所应享有的一切权利和特权”。因此,尽管出身不同、习俗迥异,天主教少数群体仍然利用他们与这位著名且至今仍受人爱戴的探险家的联系,既以此来构建泛天主教的团结,也以此来展现他们真正的美国身份(参见资料4.24.3

To further their image, American Catholics created a feast day in Columbus’s honor, named schools and hospitals after him, and sought his official canonization by the Pope. The University of Notre Dame commissioned twelve murals in its Main Building honoring “Columbus the Catholic,” and in 1882, 10 years before Harrison’s proclamation, Catholics from New Haven, Connecticut, founded the Knights of Columbus, which eventually became the nation’s largest pan-Catholic fraternal organization. Its members believed that as Catholic descendants of Columbus, they were “entitled to all the rights and privileges due such a discovery by one of our faith.”7 Thus, despite disparate national origins and different customs, the Catholic minority drew on their connection to the famous and still-beloved explorer both as a means of creating pan-Catholic unity and to show how American they really were (see Sources 4.2 and 4.3).

19世纪60年代中期,纽约人举办了以哥伦布为主题的庆祝活动。旧金山的意大利裔居民于1869年庆祝了他们的第一个“发现日”,费城居民于1876年在费尔蒙特公园竖立了哥伦布雕像。早在1892年颁布公告之前,圣路易斯、波士顿、辛辛那提和新奥尔良等地就已将哥伦布的庆祝活动列入日程。因此,当本杰明·哈里森宣布1892年10月21日为“发现日”时,他并非在开创什么新事物。相反,他是在认可当时已有的众多庆祝活动,以此肯定全国各地天主教徒的基层努力。托马斯·J·施莱雷斯指出,对于天主教徒而言,哥伦布已成为“一个前所未有的移民时代的美国民族圣人”

In the mid-1860s New Yorkers hosted Columbus-themed festivities. San Francisco’s Italians celebrated their first Discovery Day in 1869, and Philadelphians erected a statue of Columbus in Fairmount Park in 1876. Well before the 1892 proclamation, celebrations of Columbus were already on the calendar in St. Louis, Boston, Cincinnati, and New Orleans. And so, when Benjamin Harrison proclaimed October 21, 1892, “Discovery Day,” he wasn’t creating anything new. Rather, he was sanctioning the many celebrations already in place, according recognition to grassroots efforts by Catholics around the country. According to Thomas J. Schlereth, for Catholics, Columbus had become “an American ethnic saint in an era of unprecedented immigration.”8

这份公告也带有政治意味。哈里森当时正面临着一场关乎政治生死的战斗。通过正式承认哥伦布,他试图争取更多新选民的支持。因此,“发现日”与其说是英雄崇拜,不如说是行之有效的党派政治手段。哈里森公开承认哥伦布,是他向一个特殊利益群体——城市天主教徒——发出的精明政治呼吁,他认为这个群体有能力左右选举结果,使他获胜。

The proclamation had a political angle, too. Harrison was engaged in a battle for his political life. By formally recognizing Columbus, he sought to bring legions of new voters into the fold. Thus, “Discovery Day” may have been less about hero worship than tried and true party politics. Harrison’s public recognition of Columbus was an astute political appeal to a special-interest group—urban Catholics—whom he believed had the power to swing the election in his favor.

这是一场充满曲折的选举,现任总统哈里森与前总统格罗弗·克利夫兰展开角逐。克利夫兰是内战后首位当选总统的民主党人,但在1888年的连任竞选中败给了哈里森,尽管他以微弱优势赢得了普选。四年后,这两位对手再次展开连任之争。无论是现任总统还是前总统,都并非绝对的胜算。

It was an election with many strange twists, pitting the incumbent Harrison against Grover Cleveland, himself a former president. After becoming the first Democrat elected to the office since the Civil War, Cleveland lost his 1888 reelection bid to Harrison, despite narrowly winning the popular vote. Four years later, the same two opponents were locked in a battle for reelection. Neither the sitting president nor the former leader was a runaway favorite.

由于克利夫兰的民意支持率回升,以及第三方候选人詹姆斯·B·韦弗的参选,哈里森在传统上支持共和党的中西部地区面临着一场艰苦的选战。为了拿下这些州以及东部城市,哈里森和他的共和党盟友决定全力争取移民选票。

Thanks to Cleveland’s resurgent popularity, and third-party candidate James B. Weaver, Harrison faced an uphill battle in the traditionally Republican Midwest. Looking to secure those states, along with the Eastern cities, Harrison and his Republican allies decided to go all out in their pursuit of the immigrant vote.

在中西部,他们积极争取斯堪的纳维亚裔和德裔美国人的支持,而在东部,他们则争取爱尔兰裔和意大利裔美国人的支持。为了吸引那些经常接受母语教育的少数族裔美国人,哈里森公开倡导地方政府对公立学校和教会学校的控制权。为了争取爱尔兰裔天主教徒的支持,共和党人组织了爱尔兰裔美国人保护关税联盟和爱尔兰裔美国人共和党联盟,并在1892年的共和党纲领中加入了支持爱尔兰自治的条款——这无疑是一个具有象征意义的举动。虽然对哥伦布的认可旨在吸引所有天主教徒,但它尤其针对意大利裔美国人,因为他们自来到新大陆以来,就一直将克里斯托弗·哥伦布视为自己的民族英雄。

In the Midwest they courted Scandinavian- and German-Americans, as well as the Irish and Italian groups in the East. To appeal to ethnic Americans who were often taught in their mother tongue, Harrison openly advocated local control of public and parochial schools. To appeal to Irish Catholics, Republicans organized the Irish-American Protective Tariff League and the Irish-American Republican League, inserting an endorsement for Irish home rule in the 1892 Republican Platform—a symbolic gesture if there ever was one. While recognition of Columbus was an appeal to all Catholics, it particularly targeted Italian-Americans, who had been celebrating Cristoforo Colombo as their own for as long as they had been in the New World.

最终,哈里森的“发现日”庆祝活动在投票前不到三周举行。尽管时机恰当,但此举仍不足以确保哈里森的胜利。克利夫兰以压倒性优势重返白宫。

In the end, Harrison’s “Discovery Day” was celebrated less than 3 weeks before the voters went to the polls. Despite its timing, the move was not enough to secure Harrison’s victory. Cleveland was returned to the White House in a landslide.

尽管“发现日”未能帮助哈里森连任,但它本身却取得了成功。在哥伦布日当天,全国各地开展了一系列爱国活动,其中一项后来成为学校一项经久不衰的传统:弗朗西斯·贝拉米撰写的效忠誓词。1892年的“发现日”,一千万名小学生自豪地宣誓效忠美国,无论他们的宗教信仰或国籍如何。虽然这一做法更多的是象征意义而非实质意义,但在移民们渴望展现爱国情怀的时代,它却引起了强烈的共鸣。对于那些被指控为梵蒂冈外国代理人的人来说,这一点尤为重要。效忠誓词很快便成为课堂上的日常仪式。

Even though “Discovery Day” failed to produce Harrison’s second term, it proved to be a success in its own right. A slate of patriotic activities accompanied celebrations of Columbus Day across the nation, including one that would become an enduring school ritual: the Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy. On Discovery Day, 1892, 10 million schoolchildren proudly swore their loyalty to the United States, regardless of religion or national origin. While the practice was more symbolic than substantive, it resonated powerfully at a time when immigrants sought to display their patriotism. This was especially true for those facing the charge of being foreign agents of the Vatican. The pledge soon became a daily classroom fixture.

尽管其他“发现日”活动,例如《哥伦布日之歌》,并未像誓词那样经久不衰,但对哥伦布的纪念活动却一直延续至今。1905年,科罗拉多州州长杰西·F·麦克唐纳宣布设立第一个官方的非百年纪念哥伦布日,其他州也纷纷效仿。三十年后,在哥伦布骑士团的敦促下,富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统和国会将哥伦布日定为联邦假日,并将官方庆祝日期改为10月12日。

Although other Discovery Day activities didn’t share the pledge’s staying power, including the “Song of Columbus Day,” celebrating Columbus certainly did. In 1905, Colorado Governor Jesse F. McDonald declared the first official noncentennial Columbus Day, a practice taken up by other states. Thirty years later, at the urging of the Knights of Columbus, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress made Columbus Day a federal holiday, moving the official celebration to October 12.

谜题、问题与历史进程

Puzzles, Questions, and the Process of History

许多学生初次接触哈里森宣言时,往往只关注1492年,而忽略了这份文件是在400年后才出现的。将哈里森宣言置于1892年的背景下,会改变读者接下来探索哥伦布日故事的方式。

When they first encounter the Harrison proclamation, many students become so fixated on 1492, they never notice that this document appeared 400 years later. Putting Harrison’s declaration in the context of 1892 changes a reader’s next steps in exploring the story of Columbus Day.

研读“发现日”公告的历史学家们想要解开这个历史谜团。他们想知道哈里森的公告是否有先例,发现日是否引发了反对或反天主教情绪的反弹。他们好奇其他州是否在联邦政府发布公告之前就已将10月21日定为假日,如果是,这些州的天主教人口是否众多。最后,他们想知道这一事件是如何以及何时从一项公告演变为全国性庆祝活动的。

The historians who read the Discovery Day proclamation wanted to understand this historical puzzle. They wanted to know if there was a precedent to Harrison’s declaration, whether Discovery Day had ignited opposition or anti-Catholic backlash. They were curious to know if other states had made October 21 a holiday before the federal declaration, and if so, whether those states had large Catholic populations. Finally, they wanted to know how and when the event had gone from a proclamation to a national celebration.

在对这份文献进行历史性思考时,历史学家最终走上了一条与高中生截然不同的道路。学生们回顾了他们已知的关于哥伦布的知识,并重复着政治正确的口号,而历史学家则发现自己面对的是谜题和疑问,是那些尚未探索和未知的领域。因此,他们被迫进行更具批判性、更具创造性和更具历史性的思考。

In thinking historically about the document, historians ended up going down a different path from the high school students. While the students revisited what they already knew about Columbus and repeated politically correct slogans, historians found themselves dealing with puzzles and questions, the unexplored and the unknown. As a result, they were challenged to think more critically, more creatively, and more historically.

最终,历史学家们发现了新的信息——不仅涉及移民和身份政治,也涉及哥伦布不断演变的遗产。无论今天人们持何种立场,在19世纪末,美国人对哥伦布的看法几乎一致地持积极态度。理解了这一点,学生们就不太可能仅仅用当下的视角来解读对哥伦布的纪念活动。通过将哈里森的公告等文献置于历史背景中,一个全新的世界便会展现在我们面前——一个充满未解之谜和看待历史新视角的世界。

In the end, the historians uncovered new information—not only about immigration and identity politics but also about Columbus’s evolving legacy. Whatever positions they may have today, in the late 19th century Americans held a uniformly positive view of Columbus. Understanding that, students are less likely to interpret celebrations of Columbus solely through the lens of the present. By putting documents like Harrison’s proclamation into context, a new world opens up—one filled with unanswered questions and new ways of looking at the past.

为什么要教授“探索日”?

Why Teach About “Discovery Day”?

这是一个教授如何理解历史文献的机会。许多学生仅仅因为哥伦布的名字出现在“发现日”文件中就止步不前,而忽略了其他内容。而历史学家则不同,他们阅读文献时首先会将其置于特定的时间和地点。他们会先探究文献的来源和背景,询问其作者是谁、发表于何处、何时出版以及当时的社会热点问题。通过提出这些问题,历史学家能够更好地理解文献的意义及其作者的真实动机。

An Opportunity to Teach About Understanding Sources in Context. Many students are so blinded by Columbus’s name in the Discovery Day document that they never get past it. Historians, on the other hand, begin their reading by situating a document in place and time. They begin by “sourcing” and “contextualizing” a document, asking who wrote it, where it appeared, when it was published, and what the burning issues of the day were. By asking such questions, historians develop a better understanding of a document’s significance and the real motives of its author.

以“发现日”宣言为例,许多学生援引20世纪对哥伦布航行的解读来批判哈里森的宣言。他们不可避免地忽略了这份文件签署于1892年这一事实,而这一事实引发了一系列问题:公众人物为何会在特定时间发布宣言?教授“发现日”相关内容,可以帮助学生将文件置于特定的时间和地点进行理解。这可以向他们展示,培养历史思维习惯将如何自然而然地引导他们关注文件的创作背景。

In the case of the Discovery Day proclamation, many students drew on 20th-century interpretations of Columbus’s voyage to critique Harrison’s proclamation. Inevitably, they overlooked that the document was signed in 1892, a fact that invites a host of questions about why public figures issue proclamations when they do. Teaching about Discovery Day provides an opportunity to help students situate documents in time and place. It can show them how developing historical habits of mind will instinctively point them to the context of a document’s creation.

探索历史用途的机会。历史的用途多种多样;同一个历史人物或事件在不同的时期可能被用于不同的目的。当新的信息出现时,这种变化就会发生,从而需要重新评估历史。有时,政治和文化发展的变迁也会促使我们重新审视之前的解读。就“发现日”而言,这两种力量都在发挥作用。一方面,当今的学术界对哥伦布的批判比19世纪甚至20世纪更为严厉。另一方面,虽然现代对哥伦布的纪念活动被认为对原住民缺乏尊重,但在1892年,这却是向当时饱受歧视的城市天主教徒传递信息的一种方式。

A Chance to Explore the Uses to Which History Is Put. History is constantly being put to various uses; the same historical figure or event may be used for different purposes at different times. Such changes can occur when new information comes to light, producing the need for reevaluation. At other times, shifts in political and cultural developments make us look anew at our previous interpretations. In the case of Discovery Day, both forces are at work. On one hand, present-day scholarship is more critical of Columbus than it was in the 19th or even 20th centuries. On the other, while modern celebrations of Columbus are seen as insensitive to native peoples, in 1892 they were a way of reaching out to the maligned urban Catholic.

一个教授历史变迁的机会。学生们常常认为,他们出生的世界格局就是一切的本来面目。很难想象,在那个时代,天主教徒曾面临持续不断的歧视和不忠的指控。如今,新教徒和天主教徒之间的区别几乎无关紧要,除非涉及到堕胎或同性婚姻等问题。但即便在这些问题上,天主教徒的立场也并非铁板一块:他们的立场与其他宗教信徒的立场有相当大的重叠。19世纪美国天主教徒担心自己受到罗马教廷的指示,这种担忧似乎只是一些对公共生活影响甚微的极端团体的臆想。然而,直到1960年,总统候选人约翰·F·肯尼迪仍然不得不为自己辩护,反驳有关他的天主教信仰使他不适合担任总统的指控(资料来源4.7)。一次对 19 世纪 90 年代的考察,有助于学生了解美国从一个勉强容忍外来者的新教国家,发展成为一个拥有多种宗教信仰的多元文化国家,其历程有多长。

A Chance to Teach About Change over Time. Students often assume that the layout of the world into which they are born is the way things have always been. An America in which Catholics faced constant discrimination and charges of disloyalty is hard to imagine. The distinctions between Protestant and Catholic rarely matter today, except as they touch on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. But even here, the Catholic vote is hardly monolithic: There is considerable overlap between their stances and those held by Americans from other religions. The 19th-century fear that American Catholics were receiving marching orders from Rome seems like the stuff of wacko fringe groups with little influence on public life. Still, as late as 1960, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy was obliged to defend himself against charges that his Catholicism rendered him unfit to be president (Source 4.7). An excursion into the 1890s helps students understand how far America has come in its journey from being a Protestant country that faintly tolerated outsiders to a multicultural nation with a wide range of religious faiths.

与今日的联系。 “探索日”展现了总统竞选纲领如何应对美国的人口结构剧变,预示了一种如今已成为政治格局中常态的策略:争取不同选民的支持。哈里森的竞选活动揭示了政治家为何要争取来自不同背景——种族、民族和宗教——的选民,以及随着美国日益多元化,这种做法是如何愈演愈烈的。探究哈里森在19世纪90年代的动机,引发了人们对当今移民和总统政治的思考,包括当代候选人如何调整竞选信息以博取不同群体的支持。

Connection to Today. Discovery Day shows how a presidential platform addressed the demographic upheavals of America, prefiguring a tactic that has become a fixture in the political landscape: reaching out and courting votes among varied constituencies. Harrison’s campaign opens a window on why politicians court voters from different backgrounds—racial, ethnic, and religious—and how this practice has increased as America has become more diverse. Considering Harrison’s motives in the 1890s raises questions about today’s immigration and presidential politics, including how contemporary candidates tailor their message to curry favor with different groups.

你会如何使用这些材料?

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一(1-2小时课程)。 1492年和1892年,哪个日期更重要?学习如何将一份文件置于历史背景中,并理解是什么促使哈里森发表“发现日”宣言。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). What date matters most, 1492 or 1892? Learn to put a document in context and understand what influenced Harrison to make his “Discovery Day” proclamation.


CCSS

6–8 #1

11–12 #7

CCSS

6–8 #1

11–12 #7


请学生阅读《发现日宣言》(资料 4.1),但首先要去掉文件的日期和作者信息。让学生写下他们对这份文件的感受,并记下他们想了解的历史背景问题。除非你事先已经讲解过如何将文件置于历史背景中,否则很多学生会只关注哥伦布饱受争议的遗产,而不会想到去探究这份文件的写作时间或写作目的。在简要讨论学生的感受之后,告诉他们文件的日期和作者信息,并让他们写下这些新信息可能引发的想法。

Ask students to read the Discovery Day proclamation (Source 4.1), but first eliminate the document’s date and author. Have students write down their responses to the document and jot down questions they would ask about its historical context. Unless you’ve already done some work on placing documents in context, many students will zoom in on Columbus’s troubled legacy and never think to ask when the document was written or for what purpose. After briefly discussing students’ responses, give them the document’s date and author, and ask them to write down ideas that these new pieces of information may prompt.

在指出1892年是选举年之后,将学生分成小组,思考哈里森宣布“发现日”为全国性节日的动机(参见工具4.1)。给每个小组分发资料4.1、4.2、4.3和4.4 根据时间安排,可以提供其他资料,例如资料4.5。布置一篇论文,要求学生解释哈里森为何选择在那个时间发布“发现日”公告,以及1892年的事件如何影响对这份文件的解读。

After pointing out that 1892 was an election year, divide students into groups to consider Harrison’s motives in proclaiming “Discovery Day” a national holiday (see Tool 4.1). Give each group Sources 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Depending on how much time you have, provide additional documents, such as Source 4.5. Assign an essay in which students explain why Harrison issued his “Discovery Day” proclamation when he did, and how the events of 1892 shape how the document should be read.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 来源背景
  • Contextualizing sources
  • 质疑消息来源
  • Questioning sources
  • 佐证来源
  • Corroborating sources
  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation

情景二(2-4小时课程):注重语境。本情景是对前一情景的扩展,旨在让学生有更多机会练习在语境中阅读文档。

Scenario 2 (2–4 Hour Lesson). Focus on context. This scenario expands on the previous one, and is designed to give students more practice reading documents in context.


CCSS

#9

CCSS

#9


首先,引导学生进行上述分析和讨论,参考资料4.1、4.2、4.3、4.44.5。在此情境中,学生将面对反天主教偏见的问题,例如内战时期关于“一无所知党”(Know-Nothing Party)的节选(资料4.6)以及约翰· F ·肯尼迪1960年直面反天主教问题的演讲(资料4.7)。可以考虑让学生比较不同时期的移民政策问题。这些问题有哪些相同点和不同点?让学生有机会思考宗教问题在过去一百年中如何影响了关于移民的辩论。

First, lead them through the analysis and discussion described above, using Sources 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. In this scenario, students will confront the issue of anti-Catholic prejudice, as seen in the Civil War-era excerpt about the Know-Nothing Party (Source 4.6) and John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech that confronted the issue of anti-Catholicism head-on (Source 4.7). Consider having students compare issues of immigration policy across time. In what ways are issues the same and different? Give students an opportunity to consider how the issue of religion has influenced debates about immigration during the last hundred years.

图像

或者,可以深入探讨移民的特定时期以及哈里森的宣言。在学生熟悉了19世纪90年代的更广泛议题后,让他们阅读本章开头雅各布对哈里森宣言的回应。让他们思考雅各布遗漏了什么。让学生写一篇作文,论述高中生雅各布在评论哈里森宣言时忽略了哪些方面。

Alternately, go deeper with the particular era of immigration and Harrison’s proclamation. Once students are acquainted with the broader issues of the 1890s, read them Jacob’s response to the Harrison proclamation at the beginning of this chapter. Ask them to consider what Jacob is missing. Have students write an essay about what Jacob, the high school student, missed when he commented on the Harrison proclamation.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 来源背景
  • Contextualizing sources
  • 质疑消息来源
  • Questioning sources
  • 佐证来源
  • Corroborating sources
  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 与近代史建立联系
  • Making connections to more recent history

情景三(1-2小时课程)。本情景将帮助学生分析一幅不同时代的社论漫画。我们选用托马斯·纳斯特(Thomas Nast)的插图(来源4.8),他不仅是美国最著名的社论漫画家之一,而且在很大程度上促成了大象和驴子成为两大政党的象征。

Scenario 3 (1–2 Hour Lesson). This scenario will help students analyze an editorial cartoon from a different era. We use an illustration by Thomas Nast (Source 4.8), who was not only one of the most famous editorial cartoonists in America, but also the man largely responsible for making the elephant and donkey the symbols of two major political parties.


CCSS

6–8 #2、#7

9–10 #5

CCSS

6–8 #2, #7

9–10 #5


我们有时会认为,漫画之所以容易被学生理解,是因为它们用图像而非文字来表达观点。虽然这对于当代图像来说或许如此,但解读一幅遥远过去的漫画则截然不同。那些在今天看来易于理解的特征——比如乔治·W·布什那对巨大的耷拉耳朵——在学生试图解读不同时代的社论漫画时,却往往会成为他们的绊脚石。1870年读者能够识别的符号和标记,对于今天的学生(甚至我们自己)来说,往往是难以解读的。

We sometimes assume that cartoons are easy for students to understand because they make their point in pictures, not in words. While this might hold true for contemporary images, trying to decode a cartoon from the distant past is a different story. The very features that make an image easy to understand today—George W. Bush’s huge floppy ears—are what will trip up students when trying to decipher an editorial cartoon from a different era. Codes and symbols that readers would recognize in 1870 will often be indecipherable to today’s students (and often to us as well).

社论漫画运用了一系列许多学生不熟悉的惯例。为此,我们开发了一种记忆工具“BASIC”(工具 4.2),以帮助学生破解漫画的密码。

Editorial cartoons employ a series of conventions that are unfamiliar to many students. For this purpose, we have developed a mnemonic tool, “B.A.S.I.C.” (Tool 4.2), to help students crack a cartoon’s code.

社论漫画的目标与普通漫画(例如加里·拉森或呆伯特的作品)不同,后者旨在娱乐大众。如果社论漫画让我们会心一笑,那只是附带效果,而非其主要目的。社论漫画的首要目的是传达尖锐的政治或社会批判信息。社论漫画有其观点,有时甚至是尖锐的批判。

The goal of an editorial cartoon is different from regular cartoons (think Gary Larson or Dilbert) that seek to amuse or entertain. If an editorial cartoon makes us smile, it’s a side effect, not the primary goal. First and foremost, editorial cartoons convey messages that carry a trenchant political or social critique. Editorial cartoons have a point, sometimes a very sharp one.

资料 4.8展示了纳斯特最著名的漫画之一《美国恒河》,该漫画于 1871 年 9 月 30 日发表在《哈珀周刊》上,并于 1875 年以略微不同的形式再次发表。尽管这幅漫画随处可见(出现在数十个网站上),但如果没有精心设计的入门指导,很少有学生能够理解它的含义。

Source 4.8 displays one of Nast’s most famous cartoons, “The American River Ganges,” published in Harper’s Weekly on September 30, 1871, and again, in a slightly different form, in 1875. Despite its ubiquity (the cartoon appears on dozens of websites), few students will be able to unlock its meaning without a carefully scaffolded entree to this unfamiliar world.

“美国恒河”一词出现在纽约州一场关于公立学校资助天主教学校的辩论中。1869年,威廉·“老板”·特威德(William “Boss” Tweed)——他强大的民主党总部坦慕尼协会(Tammany Hall)象征着贪污腐败——起草了一项法案,允许纽约市资助200名或以上学生的教区学校(通常情况下,这项法案仅适用于天主教学校,因为新教和犹太教学校的规模通常要小得多)。当媒体得知特威德的计划后,便对其进行了猛烈抨击,并贴上了“天主教”的标签。尽管纽​​约州议会的共和党多数派否决了这项法案,但大势已去:人们担心天主教徒决心从公立学校夺走资金,以推行其险恶的“罗马”议程。

“The American River Ganges” appeared during a debate over public funding of Catholic schools in New York State. In 1869, William “Boss” Tweed, whose powerful Democratic headquarters, Tammany Hall, symbolized graft and corruption, authored a bill to allow New York City to fund parochial schools of 200 students or more (in general, this applied only to Catholic schools, as Protestant and Jewish schools were typically much smaller). When the press learned of Tweed’s scheme, they tarred and feathered it with anti-Catholic taunts of “Popery.” Although the Republican majority in the New York legislature killed the bill, the die was cast: People feared that Catholics were determined to take money away from the public schools to promote a sinister “Roman” agenda.9

在让学生解开“美国恒河”之谜之前,先回顾一下BASIC缩写(工具4.2)。首先,可以尝试用当代社论漫画练习一下,因为现代观众更容易理解漫画的含义。在我们的教学中,我们发现三步法在解读漫画、艺术作品和照片等视觉证据时非常有效。首先,我们让学生描述他们所看到的内容,重点关注图像的细节。通过全班一起进行这项活动,学生们可以共同领略到比他们个人第一眼所见更多的信息。当学生们仔细观察完图像的细节后,我们再进入解读阶段。在这个阶段,工具4.3至关重要,它可以帮助学生熟悉纳斯特使用的符号和指示物(例如主教冠、圣彼得大教堂等等)。

Before asking students to tackle the riddle that is “The American River Ganges,” begin by going over the B.A.S.I.C. acronym (Tool 4.2). First, try practicing it on contemporary editorial cartoons, whose meanings are more transparent to modern audiences. In our teaching, we have found that a three-part sequence is useful when decoding visual evidence such as cartoons, artwork, and photographs. We begin by asking students to describe what they see, staying close to the details of the image. By doing this as a whole-class activity, students can collectively glimpse more than whatever first meets their individual eyes. Once students have exhausted the details of the image, we move on to interpreting what we see. For this stage Tool 4.3 will be crucial, familiarizing students with symbols and indicators used by Nast (mitres, St. Peter’s Basilica, and so on).

在最后阶段——推测阶段——学生们准备探讨漫画家的论点。工具 4.4包含一些问题,可以引导学生进行分析。使用这些问题,学生可以对《美国河流恒河》进行观察,而无需过早地得出结论或做出解释。

During the final stage—speculating—students are ready to tackle the cartoonist’s argument. Tool 4.4 includes questions that guide students through this analysis. Using this set of questions will allow students to make observations about “The American River Ganges” without unnecessarily forming conclusions or interpretations.

图像

引导学生注意漫画中的鳄鱼:它们是真的吗?它们穿的是什么?确保学生注意到岸上那个带着几个小孩的男孩和背景中其他孩子之间的区别。他们注意到大男孩口袋里露出的书了吗?书里写了什么?最后,当学生猜测漫画的含义时,帮助他们将恒河与天主教联系起来(例如,恒河对印度教徒来说是神圣的,而印度教在19世纪被许多美国人视为外来的、“野蛮的”宗教)。

Draw students’ attention to the crocodiles shown in the cartoon: Are they real? What are they wearing? Make sure students note the difference between the boy onshore with smaller children huddled behind him, and the other children in the background. Do they notice the book protruding from the older boy’s pocket? What does the book say? Finally, when students speculate about the meaning of the cartoon, help make the connection between the Ganges River and Catholicism (i.e., the Ganges is sacred to the Hindus, a religion considered by many 19th-century Americans to be foreign and “barbaric”).


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 分析政治漫画
  • Analyzing political cartoons
  • 来源背景
  • Contextualizing sources
  • 质疑消息来源
  • Questioning sources





资源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源4.1:哈里森公告(修改版)

SOURCE 4.1: HARRISON’S PROCLAMATION (MODIFIED)


美国总统公告

By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation

因此,我,美利坚合众国总统本杰明·哈里森,根据上述联合决议,特此宣布1892年10月21日星期五,即哥伦布发现美洲四百周年纪念日,为美国人民的公共假日。在这一天,人民应尽可能停止劳作,致力于各种活动,以表达对发现者的敬意,并表达对美国过去四个世纪伟大成就的感激之情。

Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States of America, in pursuance of the aforesaid joint resolution, do hereby appoint Friday, October 21, 1892, the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Columbus, as a general holiday for the people of the United States. On that day let the people, so far as possible, cease from toil and devote themselves to such exercises as may best express honor to the discoverer and their appreciation of the great achievements of the four completed centuries of American life.

哥伦布在他所处的时代是进步与启蒙的先驱。在当今时代,普及教育是启蒙精神最显著、最有益的特征,因此,让学校成为民众展示这一精神的中心尤为重要。让国旗飘扬在全国每一所学校的上空,让学校的各项活动能够深刻地向青年灌输美国公民的爱国责任。

Columbus stood in his age as the pioneer of progress and enlightenment. The system of universal education is in our age the most prominent and salutary feature of the spirit of enlightenment, and it is peculiarly appropriate that the schools be made by the people the center of the day’s demonstration. Let the national flag float over every schoolhouse in the country and the exercises be such as shall impress upon our youth the patriotic duties of American citizenship.

在教堂和人民的其他集会场所,要向神圣的天意表达感激之情,感谢发现者的虔诚信仰,感谢神圣的关怀和指引,它引领了我们的历史,并如此丰厚地祝福了我们的人民。

In the churches and in the other places of assembly of the people let there be expressions of gratitude to Divine Providence for the devout faith of the discoverer and for the divine care and guidance which has directed our history and so abundantly blessed our people.


资料来源:本杰明·哈里森总统 1892 年 7 月 21 日的公告。

Source: President Benjamin Harrison’s Proclamation, July 21, 1892.

 

 

资料来源4.2:美国天主教

SOURCE 4.2: CATHOLICISM IN AMERICA


作为美国天主教徒,我们认为没有谁比这位伟大而高尚的人——虔诚、热忱、忠实的天主教徒,富有进取心的航海家,以及心胸宽广、慷慨大方的水手——克里斯托弗·哥伦布——更值得我们感激铭记。

As American Catholics we do not know of anyone who more deserves our grateful remembrance than the great and noble man—the pious, zealous, faithful Catholic, the enterprising navigator, and the large-hearted and generous sailor: Christopher Columbus.


来源:摘自佚名作者的文章“克里斯托弗·哥伦布——新世界的发现者”,《康涅狄格天主教报》,1878 年 5 月 25 日,第 4 页。

Source: Excerpt, unknown author, “Christopher Columbus—Discoverer of the New World,” Connecticut Catholic, May 25, 1878, 4.

 

 

资料来源4.3:哥伦布K

SOURCE 4.3: KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS


图像

文字稿:

Transcript:

“首先讨论的是为新社团选择一个名称。麦吉夫尼神父建议取名为‘哥伦布之子’,并指出采用这个名称将在某种程度上表明该修会的天主教和美国特色及倾向。詹姆斯·T·穆伦随后发言,他在发言中表示,如果他理解正确的话,这个新社团将是一个注重仪式的社团。如果情况确实如此,他将对麦吉夫尼神父的建议提出修改意见,建议将社团命名为‘哥伦布骑士团’。”

“The first subject taken up was the selection of a name for the new society. Father McGivney suggested as a name ‘Sons of Columbus,’ stating that by the adoption of this name, we would be indicating in a way the Catholic and American character and tendency of the Order. James T. Mullen took the floor, and in his remarks said that if he understood the situation correctly, the new society was to be a ritualistic one. If such were the case, he would offer an amendment to Father McGivney’s suggestion, and that the society should be known as the Knights of Columbus.”


来源:摘自丹尼尔·科尔韦尔的《哥伦布骑士团:该组织的第一次会议》,《哥伦比亚报》 ,1910 年 3 月。

Source: Excerpt from Daniel Colwell, “The Knights of Columbus: First Meeting of the Order,” The Columbiad, March 1910.

 

 

资料来源4.4:国籍划分美国移民情况:1850–1930 年

SOURCE 4.4: IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES BY NATIONALITY: 1850–1930


图像


数据来源:美国人口普查局。网址:http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab04.html

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab04.html

 

 

资料来源4.5 :哈里森演讲(改编

SOURCE 4.5: HARRISON SPEECH (ADAPTED)


有些人可能会认为,英国议会正在辩论的有关爱尔兰的待决立法问题,不宜在美国的市民大会上讨论。我们对英国政府的决策没有官方发言权。英国政府可以关注,也可以不关注我们在这里所说所做,但无论如何,我们仍将行使表达意见的自由。我们来到这里并非建议英国给予爱尔兰独立。我们只是想说,作为美国公民,我们认为爱尔兰需要的不是强制,不是警察,也不是手持火枪和刺刀的士兵。爱尔兰需要的是自由的法律,使她的人民摆脱几个世纪以来糟糕政府的恶果。当英国政府开始采取强制手段,并推迟改革建议时,它就走错了方向。

Some may suggest that the question of the pending legislation relating to Ireland, which is being debated in the British Parliament, is not a proper subject of discussion in an American town meeting. We have no official say in what the British government does. It can take notice or not of what we do and say here, but all the same we will exercise the liberty of saying it. We are not here to suggest to Great Britain that she shall grant the Irish their independence. We are here simply to say that, in our opinion as American citizens, what Ireland needs is not coercion, is not the constable, is not the soldier with musket and bayonet. What Ireland needs is liberal laws, that emancipate her people from the results of long centuries of ill government. When this British Ministry starts in the direction of coercion, and postpones suggestions for reform, it is traveling in the wrong direction.


资料来源:本杰明·哈里森于 1887 年 4 月 8 日在印第安纳波利斯发表的竞选演讲。

Source: Campaign speech made by Benjamin Harrison in Indianapolis, April 8, 1887.


词库

WORD BANK


胁迫——被迫的行为

coercion—the act of being forced

警员——一名警察

constable—a policeman

解放——使自由

to emancipate—to free


(原来的)

(Original)

或许有人会认为我们今晚的行为略带冒犯——英国议会正在讨论的有关爱尔兰的待决立法问题,在美国的市民大会上讨论似乎并不合适……我们并无正式的意愿向英国政府提出任何意见。英国政府可以关注我们在此的言行,也可以置之不理,但我们仍然要行使表达意见的权利……我们并非在此建议英国承认爱尔兰独立……我们只是想表明,作为美国公民,我们认为爱尔兰需要的不是强制,不是警察,也不是手持火枪和刺刀的士兵;而是旨在将爱尔兰人民从几个世纪以来糟糕的政府统治中解放出来的自由法律。我们认为,当英国政府开始采取强制手段,并将改革建议推迟到强制法案通过之后时,它就走错了方向。

It may be suggested that we are engaged to-night in an act that savors somewhat of impertinence—that the question of the pending legislation relating to Ireland, which is the subject of discussion in the British Parliament, is not a proper subject of discussion in an American town meeting…. We have no official representations to make to the British government. It can take notice or not of what we do and say here, but all the same we will exercise the liberty of saying it…. We are not here to suggest to Great Britain that she shall concede Irish independence…. We are here simply to say that, in our opinion as American citizens, what Ireland needs is not coercion, is not the constable, is not the soldier with musket and bayonet; but liberal laws, tending to emancipate her people from the results of long centuries of ill government, and that when this British Ministry starts in the direction of coercion, and postpones suggestions for reform until a coercion bill has been enacted, it is traveling in the wrong direction.

 

 





来源4.6无知派对​​

SOURCE 4.6: KNOW-NOTHING PARTY


本组织的宗旨是保护每一位美国公民合法、正当地行使所有公民权利和宗教权利及特权;以一切合法方式抵制罗马教会的阴险政策和所有其他外国势力对我们共和制度的影响;确保所有由人民授予或任命的荣誉、信任或有报酬的职位,只由美国本土出生的新教公民担任;并保护、维护和捍卫这些州的联邦及其宪法。

The object of this organization shall be to protect every American citizen in the legal and proper exercise of all his civil and religious rights and privileges; to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence against our republican institutions in all lawful ways; to place in all offices of honor, trust, or profit, in the gift of the people or by appointment, none but native-born Protestant citizens and to protect, preserve, and uphold the Union of these States and the Constitution of the same.


资料来源:《北美合众国全国委员会(又称“一无所知党”)第二条》。约1855年。

Source: Article II of the National Council of the United States of North America, otherwise known as the Know-Nothing Party. Circa 1855.


词库

WORD BANK


阴险的——邪恶

insidious—evil


资料来源4.7 肯尼迪演讲

SOURCE 4.7: KENNEDY SPEECH


注:1960年9月12日,总统候选人约翰·F·肯尼迪在大休斯顿牧师协会发表了演讲。当时许多人质疑肯尼迪的天主教信仰是否会影响他领导国家的能力。

Note: On September 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Many at the time questioned whether Kennedy’s Catholic faith would interfere with his ability to lead the country.

因为我是天主教徒,而历史上从未有天主教徒当选总统,所以这次竞选中的真正问题被掩盖了,或许在某些不负责任的群体中,这是故意的。因此,我显然有必要再次声明,我信仰的不是什么样的教会——因为这应该只对我个人重要——而是我信仰什么样的美国……

Because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured, perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in—for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in….

我信仰的美国,官方上既非天主教国家,也非新教国家,也非犹太教国家……没有任何宗教团体试图直接或间接地将其意志强加于广大民众或其官员的公开行为之上……

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish … where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials….

最后,我相信,终有一天,美国会消除宗教不容忍;所有男人和所有教会都会被平等对待;每个人都有平等的权利选择去或不去自己选择的教会;不会有天主教徒的选票,不会有反天主教徒的选票,也不会有任何形式的集团投票;天主教徒、新教徒和犹太教徒……将摒弃过去常常损害他们事业的蔑视和分裂的态度,转而弘扬美国博爱的理想……

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews … will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood….

如果我因真正的问题而落败,我将回到参议院的席位,因为我已尽力而为,也得到了公正的评判。但如果这次选举的胜负取决于四千万美国人在受洗当天失去了成为总统的机会,那么整个国家都将是输家——在全世界天主教徒和非天主教徒眼中,在历史的眼中,以及在我们自己的人民眼中。

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that forty million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser—in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.


来源:摘自总统候选人约翰·F·肯尼迪于 1960 年 9 月 12 日发表的演讲。

Source: Excerpt from a speech given by presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1960.

 

 

来源4.8:N AST C卡通

SOURCE 4.8: NAST CARTOON


图像


来源:托马斯·纳斯特,《美国恒河》,《哈珀周刊》 ,1871 年 9 月 30 日(另见http://www.aoh61.com/images/ir_cartoons/river_ganges.htm)。

Source: Thomas Nast, “The American River Ganges,” Harper’s Weekly, September 30, 1871 (see also http://www.aoh61.com/images/ir_cartoons/river_ganges.htm).

 

 





工具4.1资源置于背景之中

TOOL 4.1: PUTTING A SOURCE IN CONTEXT


说明:使用资料 4.24.5来帮助你理解哈里森在 1892 年设立发现日的原因。

Directions: Use Sources 4.24.5 to help you understand why Harrison established Discovery Day in 1892.

1. 该资料告诉我们1892年发生了什么?

1. What does this source tell us was going on in 1892?

2. 该资料中描述的事件或问题可能对哈里森产生了哪些影响?

2. How might the events or issues presented in this source have influenced Harrison?

3. 阅读这些资料后,你认为哈里森为什么要在 1892 年设立“发现日”?

3. After reading these sources, why do you think Harrison established “Discovery Day” in 1892?





工具4.2:基本

TOOL 4.2: B.A.S.I.C.


基础:解读社论漫画的步骤

B.A.S.I.C.: Steps to Interpreting Editorial Cartoons

 

 

社论漫画的特点是能在有限的篇幅内传递大量的信息。缩写词 BASIC 可以帮助你在欣赏不同时期的漫画时记住需要关注哪些方面。

Editorial cartoons use features that pack dense information into a small space. The acronym B.A.S.I.C. reminds you what to look for when exploring a cartoon from a different time.

B:背景知识

B: Background Knowledge

漫画家会做出一些假设,其中之一就是他们和读者共享一个共同的世界。在一幅描绘国土安全部特工搜身的漫画中,如果画的是两栋燃烧的建筑,我们一眼就能认出那是世界贸易中心的双子塔。这些特征如此基础,以至于我们习以为常,但再过一代人之后,情况可能就不同了。当我们解读一幅一百年前的漫画时,往往缺乏必要的背景知识来破解漫画的含义。研究漫画出现的时代背景,有助于我们理解作者想要表达的意思。

Cartoonists make certain assumptions, and one of them is that they and their readers share a common world. In a cartoon about strip searches by Homeland Security agents, an artist can depict two burning buildings, and we’ll immediately recognize them as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. These features are so basic that we take them for granted, yet in another generation or so they won’t be. When we interpret a cartoon from a hundred years ago, we often lack necessary background knowledge to crack the cartoon’s code. Studying the period in which a cartoon appeared can help you figure out what the artist is trying to say.

A:论点

A: Argument

BASIC 中的 A 代表“论证”(argument)。虽然社论漫画能让我们开怀大笑,但它们的目标更为严肃:传达某种观点,并说服我们接受某种立场。当你欣赏一幅漫画时,不妨问问自己:“作者想让我怎么想?” 尝试用简短的语句概括作者的观点或论点,例如:“从这幅漫画中可以清楚地看出,作者认为依赖外国石油会毁了美国。”

The A in B.A.S.I.C. stands for “argument.” Although editorial cartoons can make us laugh or smile, they have a more serious goal: to convey a point and convince us to adopt a position. When you look at a cartoon, ask yourself, “What does the artist want me to think?” Try to state the artist’s point, or thesis, in a short statement, e.g., “From this cartoon, it is clear that the author thinks dependence on foreign oil will ruin America.”

S:象征主义

S: Symbolism

漫画运用符号将大量信息浓缩于单一画面之中。符号是指向比自身更广泛的概念的指称。新月、六芒星和十字架不仅仅是月亮、星星或几何图形,它们分别代表着伊斯兰教、犹太教和基督教这三大宗教文明。符号是每位漫画家必备的工具。

Cartoons use symbols to pack a lot of information into a single frame. Symbols are designations that point to something broader than themselves. A crescent, a six-pointed star, and a cross are more than moons, stars, or geometric figures. They stand for entire religious civilizations: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, respectively. Symbols are part of the toolbox of every editorial cartoonist.

I:指标

I: Indicators

但符号本身并不能完成这项工作。漫画家会使用指示符或文字标签来引导我们理解。通常,指示符会直接告诉我们某个事物代表什么(有时甚至是漫画中唯一使用的文字)。除了漫画的标题和说明文字之外,还要留意其他指示符,它们有时会以小字出现在漫画正文中。

But symbols can’t do it alone. Cartoonists use indicators, or written labels, that point us in a certain direction. Often, indicators tell us directly what something stands for (and may be the only words used in the cartoon). In addition to the cartoon’s title and caption, be on the lookout for other indicators, sometimes found in small print in the body of the cartoon itself.

C:漫画

C: Caricature

漫画遵循“值得说的话就值得夸张”的格言,而讽刺画正是这种夸张手法的典型代表。当我们被堵在路上时,可能会说:“前面有一百万辆车!得花好几年才能出来。” 漫画家们也秉持着同样的理念,将糟糕的政府政策比作十灾之一,或者将年迈的候选人比作千岁老人。讽刺画还可以运用刻板印象,即扭曲的形象,夸大整个群体的特征。这类形象,尤其是来自不同时代的形象,在现代人看来往往带有种族主义或偏见色彩。

Cartoons follow the adage, “What’s worth stating is worth overstating,” and caricature exemplifies such exaggeration. When we’re stuck in a traffic jam, we might say, “There are a million cars in front of us! It’ll take years to get out of here.” In the same spirit, cartoonists compare a bad government policy to one of the Ten Plagues, or an aging candidate to the Thousand-Year-Old Man. Caricature can also employ stereotypes, distorted images that exaggerate the features of entire groups. Such images, particularly those from a different era, often seem racist or bigoted to our modern eyes.

 

 





工具4.3 :解读托马斯·纳斯特美洲河流变迁​​

TOOL 4.3: DECODING THOMAS NAST’S “THE AMERICAN RIVER GANGES


这些背景信息将有助于您回答以下讲义中的问题。

This background information will help you answer questions in the following handout.

1)主教冠:教皇、主教和枢机主教佩戴的宗教头饰。

1) Mitre: a religious head covering worn by the Pope, as well as bishops and cardinals.

图像

教皇佩戴的主教冠(头饰),http://www.godsonlygospel.com/POPE~4.JPG

A mitre (head covering) worn by the Pope, http://www.godsonlygospel.com/POPE~4.JPG

2)圣彼得大教堂:圣彼得大教堂位于梵蒂冈城,是教皇的主要教堂,也是罗马天主教会举行官方仪式的场所。天主教传统认为,这座教堂是其同名人物圣彼得的安葬地,圣彼得是十二使徒之一,也是罗马的第一任主教。

2) Basilica of St. Peter: Located in Vatican City, St. Peter’s Basilica is the Pope’s principal church, and home to official ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic tradition holds that this church is the burial site of its namesake, Saint Peter, one of the Twelve Apostles and the first Bishop of Rome.

图像

罗马圣彼得大教堂(即那座带有圆顶的大型建筑),是天主教会的象征性“母教堂”。照片可在以下网址获取: http://countries-of-europe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/St.-Peters-Basilica1.jpg

Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome (i.e., the large building with a dome), symbolic “Mother Church” of the Catholic Church. Photograph available at http://countries-of-europe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/St.-Peters-Basilica1.jpg

3)哥伦比亚:17世纪晚期,“哥伦比亚”一词成为新大陆的代名词,哥伦比亚特区即以此命名。哥伦比亚的象征形象是一位女性。她身着简洁的白色长袍,常手持自由柱、美国国旗或宪法,身边往往伴有一只鹰。作为象征,哥伦比亚既让人联想到克里斯托弗·哥伦布——这位名义上的美洲“发现者”(她的名字也来源于此),同时也象征着自由与进步。

3) Columbia: A late-17th-century synonym for the New World, “Columbia,” for which the District of Columbia is named, is symbolically represented as a female figure. Depicted in a simple white gown, she is frequently shown holding the liberty pole, the American flag, or the Constitution, and is often accompanied by an eagle. As an icon, Columbia evokes Christopher Columbus, the ostensible “discoverer” of America, from whom she derives her name, while also functioning as an allegorical figure who represents liberty and progress.

图像

一战征兵海报上的哥伦比亚小姐形象。“哥伦比亚召唤——立即加入美国陆军”,由弗朗西丝·亚当斯·霍尔斯特德设计;V·阿德伦特绘制。1916年。美国国会图书馆印刷品和照片部,华盛顿特区,http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g03000/3g03600/3g03685v.jpg

Image of Miss Columbia in a World War I recruiting poster. “Columbia calls—Enlist Now for U.S. Army,” designed by Frances Adams Halsted; painted by V. Aderente. 1916. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C., http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g03000/3g03600/3g03685v.jpg

4)坦慕尼协会:坦慕尼协会(又称“圣坦慕尼之子”或“哥伦比亚教团”)成立于1789年,在整个19世纪都是纽约市政治的核心力量。该组织以坦慕尼大厅为据点,是民主党在纽约市的分支机构,其影响力随着赢得移民(其中许多是爱尔兰天主教徒)的忠诚而不断扩大。坦慕尼协会通过公共宣传、政治庇护和腐败等手段进行统治,其“头目”是纽约州最有权势的政治人物之一。其中最著名的人物威廉·“老板”·特威德甚至在入狱服刑前当选为纽约州参议员。

4) Tammany Hall: Founded in 1789, the Tammany Society (alternately known as “the Sons of St. Tammany” and “the Columbian Order”) was at the heart of New York City politics throughout the 19th century. Operating out of Tammany Hall, the organization was the city affiliate for the Democratic Party and grew in influence as it gained the loyalty of immigrants, many of whom were Irish Catholics. Governing through a system of public outreach, political patronage, and corruption, Tammany “bosses” were among the most powerful politicians in New York State. The most famous of them, William “Boss” Tweed, even won a seat in the New York State Senate before ending his days in prison.

 

 

5)倒挂国旗:国旗倒挂是常见的遇险标志。根据史密斯海军上将1867年出版的《水手词典》,当一艘船“处于迫在眉睫的危险之中”时,船员会“将国旗倒挂,如果船上有武器,则会鸣放短炮”。

5) The Inverted Flag: An upside-down national flag is a common symbol of distress. According to Admiral Smyth’s Sailor’s Word Book of 1867, when a ship is “in imminent danger,” its crew “hoists her national flag upside down, and if she is armed, fires minute guns.”

 

 

6)恒河:恒河全长约1500英里,流经印度。印度教徒视其为圣河,他们会沿着河岸的石阶(称为“河坛”)下到河中沐浴,进行朝圣之旅。印度教徒认为恒河水具有特殊的力量。19世纪,许多美国人认为印度教徒及其宗教习俗不仅奇异,而且不如西方“发达”的宗教传统。

6) The Ganges River: The Ganges runs roughly 1,500 miles through India. It is considered a holy river by the Hindus, who make pilgrimages to bathe in its waters by descending the stone steps called “ghats” along its banks. Hindus attribute special powers to the Ganges waters. In the 19th century, many Americans considered Hindus and their religious practices not only strange and exotic, but inferior to the more “developed” religious traditions of the West.


来源:“贝拿勒斯:从高止山脉看到的景色”,埃利塞·雷克吕,《地球及其居民》,1884 年。

Source: “Benares: View Taken from the Ghats,” Elisee Reclus, The Earth and Its Inhabitants, 1884.

 

 





工具4.4 :托马斯·纳斯特美国河流变迁

TOOL 4.4: THOMAS NAST’S “THE AMERICAN RIVER GANGES


  1. 仔细观察鳄鱼出没的水域。鳄鱼头上长着什么?这象征着什么?
  2. Look carefully at the crocodile-infested waters. What do the crocodiles have on their heads? What does this symbolize?
  3. 这幅漫画中的鳄鱼代表什么?
  4. What do the crocodiles in this cartoon represent?
  5. 是谁把孩子扔下悬崖?
  6. Who are the people casting the children off the cliff?
  7. 被拖往绞刑架的女子是谁?
  8. Who is the woman being dragged to the gallows?
  9. 这幅漫画中有两栋建筑;两栋建筑上都有“指示牌”,帮助读者正确解读漫画。这些指示牌是什么?它们又告诉了你漫画的什么信息?
  10. There are two buildings in this cartoon; both contain “indicators” to help the reader correctly interpret the cartoon. What are these indicators and what do they tell you about the cartoon’s message?
  11. 这位漫画家想表达什么观点?他希望读者看完这幅漫画后产生什么想法?
  12. What is the argument of this cartoonist? What does he want the reader to think after viewing this cartoon?
  13. 你认为纳斯特为什么将这幅漫画命名为“美国的恒河”?通过将天主教的象征符号与印度教徒的圣河联系起来,你认为这位漫画家想让人们对美国天主教徒产生怎样的看法?
  14. Why do you think Nast titled the cartoon “The American River Ganges”? By connecting Catholic symbols with a river sacred to the Hindus in India, what do you think the cartoonist wanted people to think about American Catholics?

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/immigration/

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/immigration/

这是由美国国会图书馆创建和维护的原始文献集“新美国人面临的移民挑战”的主页。除了音频、视频、照片和漫画等原始资料外,还提供教师用书。

This is the home page of a primary document set, “Immigration Challenges for New Americans,” created and maintained by the Library of Congress. In addition to primary source materials like audio and video footage, photographs, and cartoons, teacher materials are available as well.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/immigration/index.cfm

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/immigration/index.cfm

斯蒂芬·明茨的数字历史网站上的这个页面提供了一系列关于美国移民历史的资源。

This page from Stephen Mintz’s Digital History website offers a range of resources about the history of immigration to the United States.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook28.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook28.html

保罗·哈尔索尔的《互联网现代史资料库》中的这一页列出了有关美国各族裔移民的文件和网站链接。

This page from Paul Halsall’s Internet Modern History Sourcebook lists document and website links that focus on the American immigration of various ethnic groups.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/harris.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/harris.asp

阅读本杰明·哈里森在阿瓦隆计划(耶鲁大学法律和政治文件在线档案馆)上的就职演说。

Read Benjamin Harrison’s inaugural address at The Avalon Project, an online archive of legal and political documents housed at Yale University.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/sia/cartoon.htm

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/sia/cartoon.htm

在“历史要事”(History Matters)网站上,一位历史学家如何解读托马斯·纳斯特的另一幅漫画。“历史要事”是由乔治·梅森大学历史与新媒体中心开发和维护的网站。

See how a historian interprets another Thomas Nast cartoon at History Matters, a website developed and maintained by the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.

http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/portfolio.htm

http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/portfolio.htm

在俄亥俄州立大学主办的这个网站上可以找到托马斯·纳斯特的其他漫画作品。

Find other Thomas Nast cartoons on this site hosted by Ohio State University.

 

 


第五章

CHAPTER 5


电力与女性劳动:谁真正受益?何时受益?

Electricity and Women’s Work: Who Really Benefited? And When?

图像

西奥多·霍里德扎克,华盛顿电气学院广告,1946年8月8日。

网址:http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/sep30.html

Theodor Horydczak, advertisement of Electric Institute of Washington, August 8, 1946.

Available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/sep30.html

1921年,堪萨斯州家庭主妇W.C. Lathrop夫人写信给托马斯·爱迪生,感谢这位发明家为她家带来的电力和省时电器(见资料5.1)。 1她从堪萨斯州诺顿市写道:

In a 1921 letter to Thomas Edison, Mrs. W. C. Lathrop, a housewife from Kansas, thanked the inventor for the electricity and time-saving appliances in her home (see Source 5.1).1 From Norton, Kansas, she wrote:

尊敬的先生,

Dear Sir,

女性并非总能有幸亲自感谢那些为女性生活带来便利的发明家……我大学毕业,我的丈夫可能是托皮卡和丹佛之间最知名的外科医生之一……[我们家]用的是电灯。我用西屋牌电炉做饭,用电动洗碗机洗碗。甚至还有电风扇帮助房屋的一部分区域供暖……我用洗衣机洗衣服,用电动熨斗和滚筒熨烫。我用电动清洁剂打扫房屋。我休息,享受电动按摩,用电动卷发棒卷头发。穿上用马达驱动的机器缝制的睡袍。然后启动留声机,要么学习一会儿西班牙语,要么听听克莱斯勒、格鲁克和加利的演奏……爱迪生先生,请接受一位由衷感激您的女性的谢意。我知道,像我这样对您充满感激之情的人还有很多。

It is not always the privilege of a woman to thank personally the inventor of articles which make life liveable for her sex…. I am a college graduate and probably my husband is one of the best known surgeons between Topeka and Denver…. [Our] house is lighted by electricity. I cook on a Westinghouse electric range, wash dishes in an electric dish washer. An electric fan even helps to distribute the heat over part of the house…. I wash clothes in an electric machine and iron on an electric mangle and with an electric iron. I clean house with electric cleaners. I rest, take an electric massage and curl my hair on an electric iron. Dress in a gown sewed on a machine run by a motor. Then start the Victrola and either study Spanish for a while or listen to Kreisler and Gluck and Galli…. Please accept the thanks Mr. Edison of one most truly appreciative woman. I know I am only one of many under the same debt of gratitude to you.

我们最近旁听了一节11年级的课,学生们正在研读这封信。他们手捧这封信,思考着“爱迪生的发明是如何改变美国人生活的?”这个问题。受拉思罗普夫人热情洋溢的描述感染,学生们纷纷说道:“方方面面都改变了!”“改变了很多!”“它们让生活更轻松——尤其对女性而言!”拉思罗普夫人生动的描述让学生们相信,电力和家用电器不仅改善了她的生活,也改善了所有女性的生活。

We recently observed a class of 11th-graders who examined this letter. With this letter in hand, they pondered the question, “How did Edison’s inventions change American life?” Carried away by Mrs. Lathrop’s exuberance, students gushed, “In every way,” “A lot,” “They made life easier—especially for women.” The vividness of Mrs. Lathrop’s words led students to believe electricity and appliances had improved life for all women, just as they had for her.

直到老师问:“拉思罗普太太的情况有多典型?我们能从这封信中看出多少信息?”学生们才从最初的草率印象转向真正的历史分析。人口普查数据以及历史学家关于电气化、技术、家务劳动和女性角色的研究都表明,拉思罗普太太并非20世纪20年代的典型女性。她的家庭也并非当时大多数家庭的代表。因此,探究拉思罗普太太的典型性,就成了一堂关于社会阶层、地域差异、20世纪20年代生活以及家务劳动从前工业化向工业化过渡的课程。

Not until the teacher asked, “How typical was Mrs. Lathrop? How much can we say from this one letter?” did the students move from glib first impressions to begin the work of real historical analysis. Census data and historians’ work on electrification, technology, housework, and women’s roles all indicate that Mrs. Lathrop was not a typical 1920s woman. Nor did her household represent the majority of households of the time. Investigating the typicality of Mrs. Lathrop thus becomes a lesson in social class, regional differences, life in the 1920s, and the transition from pre-industrialized to industrialized housework.

我们首先需要做的,是通过关注历史理解的两个核心方面——时间和地点——来确定这份文件的出处。时间是1921年。拉思罗普夫人提到的许多发明——缝纫机、洗碗机等等——都是在前一年左右问世的。那么,究竟是谁拥有这些电器?它们的普及程度如何?其次,堪萨斯州的诺顿究竟在哪里?堪萨斯州显然位于美国中部,但诺顿具体在哪里?它是像威奇托或托皮卡这样的大城市的郊区吗?还是远离大城市,位于20世纪20年代仍然占据美国人口大多数的乡村地区?

The first thing we need to do is source this document by focusing on two core aspects of historical understanding: time and place. The year is 1921. The many inventions Mrs. Lathrop mentions—sewing machine, dishwasher, and so on—had just come out the previous year or so. Who, in fact, owned these devices? How widespread were they? Second, where exactly is Norton, Kansas? Kansas is in the American heartland, obviously, but where is Norton? Is it a suburb of an urban area like Wichita or Topeka? Or is it distant from a big city, part of the rural landscape that still constituted a majority of the American population in the 1920s?

多年前,要想回答这些问题,就得在图书馆的书架间耗费大量时间,翻阅成堆的参考书,希望能找到答案。但得益于互联网的便利和易于使用的数据库的普及,如今任何拥有高速网络连接的学生都能找到这些问题的答案。利用这些资源,我们可以迅速了解拉思罗普夫人究竟有多么不同寻常,以及将她的情况概括为20世纪20年代所有美国女性是多么危险。

Years ago, trying to answer these questions would have meant long hours spent in the stacks of a library, hunting through piles of reference books hoping to find answers. But thanks to the wonders of the Internet and the proliferation of easy-to-use databases, these questions can be answered by any student with a high-speed connection. Drawing on these resources, we can quickly get an idea of just how unusual Mrs. Lathrop was, and just how perilous it is to generalize from her to all American women in the 1920s.

利用谷歌地图(http://maps.google.com),我们可以很快地看到堪萨斯州诺顿位于西北方向。诺顿县位于堪萨斯州一角,紧邻内布拉斯加州南部边界,远离主要人口中心——距托皮卡290英里,距堪萨斯城350英里,距威奇托270英里,距丹佛310英里。弗吉尼亚大学图书馆网站(http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu)上的1920年联邦人口普查数据为我们提供了更多关于拉思罗普家乡的信息。通过指定堪萨斯州,我们了解到,1920年诺顿县的堪萨斯州人口为11,423人,占全州总人口1,769,257人的不到1%。事实上,人口普查数据显示,诺顿县的人口密度为每平方英里130人,在堪萨斯州各县中排名后半段。看来,拉思罗普夫人在1921年写信给托马斯·爱迪生时,居住在一个相当偏远的乡村地区。

Using Google Maps (http://maps.google.com), we can quickly see that Norton, Kansas, is in the northwest corner of Kansas, just south of the Nebraska border and far from major population centers—290 miles from Topeka, 350 from Kansas City, 270 from Wichita, and 310 from Denver. A look at the 1920 Federal census at the University of Virginia library’s website (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu) gives us more information about Lathrop’s hometown. By specifying Kansas, we learn that in 1920, Norton County accounted for 11,423 Kansans out of a state population of 1,769,257 (or less than 1%). Indeed, the census shows that Norton County had 130 people per square mile, putting it in the bottom half of the state’s counties in terms of population density. Mrs. Lathrop, it appears, lived in a fairly rural region when she wrote to Thomas Edison in 1921.

与她同龄的农村居民相比,拉思罗普夫人在1921年就能用上电,这本身就非常罕见。美国技术史学家大卫·奈指出,1935年(拉思罗普夫人写信14年后),堪萨斯州农村地区只有5%到15%的人用上了电;大部分通电的农村地区都位于东北部或远西部。 2 20世纪南方经济发展史学家克莱顿·布朗引用1920年的联邦人口普查数据显示,在600万个农场中,只有452,620个(不到8%)用上了电灯,只有643,899个(约占10%)用上了自来水。 3 布朗总结道,这些进步大多发生在新英格兰和远西部地区:“中西部和南部地区的普及率最低,在1%到不到1%之间。” 4.直到 20 世纪 30 年代罗斯福新政时期,大多数农村地区才通电。

Compared to her rural peers, the fact that Mrs. Lathrop even had electricity in 1921 was highly unusual. David Nye, a historian of American technology, notes that in 1935 (14 years after Mrs. Lathrop wrote her letter) only 5 to 15% of rural Kansas had electricity; most rural areas with electricity lay in the Northeast or Far West.2 Clayton Brown, a historian of 20th-century Southern economic development, cites a 1920 Federal census showing that of 6 million farms, only 452,620 (less than 8%) had electric lights and only 643,899, roughly 10%, possessed running water.3 Brown concludes that most of these advancements took place in New England and the Far West: “The Midwest and South ranked lowest, ranging from 10 percent to less than 1 percent.”4 Electrification didn’t come to most rural areas until the New Deal of the 1930s.

与拉思罗普不同,大多数农村妇女为了维持家庭运转,不得不忍受繁重的体力劳动。洗衣服尤其令人厌恶。 5历史学家苏珊·斯特拉瑟根据家庭经济学家凯瑟琳·比彻(1841年)和海伦·坎贝尔(1881年)的著作对此进行了描述。

In contrast to Lathrop, most rural women endured backbreaking work to keep their households running. Doing laundry was particularly odious.5 Historian Susan Strasser gives a description based on the treatises of home economists Catharine Beecher (1841) and Helen Campbell (1881).

在没有自来水、煤气或电力的情况下,即使是最简单的手工洗衣过程也耗费大量时间和人力。一次洗涤、一次煮沸、一次漂洗大约需要50加仑水——也就是400磅重——这些水必须从水泵、水井或水龙头转移到炉灶和浴缸,用桶和洗衣锅盛装,而这些桶和锅可能重达40到50磅。搓揉、拧干、提起浸透水的衣物和床单,包括床单、桌布和男士厚重的工作服等大件物品,使妇女的手臂和手腕酸痛不已,并使他们接触到腐蚀性物质。她们把装满湿衣服的沉重桶和篮子搬到户外,一件一件地拿起,挂到晾衣绳上,然后再回来全部取下来;她们熨衣服时,在炉子上加热好几个熨斗,等它们冷却后再交替使用,始终紧贴着滚烫的炉子。6

Without running water, gas, or electricity, even the most simplified hand-laundry process consumed staggering amounts of time and labor. One wash, one boiling, and one rinse used about fifty gallons of water—or four hundred pounds—which had to be moved from pump or well or faucet to stove and tub, in buckets and wash boilers that might weigh as much as forty or fifty pounds. Rubbing, wringing, and lifting water-laden clothes and linens, including large articles like sheets, tablecloths, and men’s heavy work clothes, wearied women’s arms and wrists and exposed them to caustic substances. They lugged weighty tubs and baskets full of wet laundry outside, picked up each article, hung it on the line, and returned to take it all down; they ironed by heating several irons on the stove and alternating them as they cooled, never straying far from the hot stove.6

布朗的研究支持了这些分析。1919年,美国农业部(USDA)报告称,“农村家庭每周要花费超过10个小时抽水,并将水从水源地运到厨房。” 7 布朗认为,“农妇每年花在洗衣上的时间比城市里使用电动洗衣机的妇女多20天。” 8 美国传记作家罗伯特·卡罗在其为林登·约翰逊所作的传记中,描述了在约翰逊于1938年推动该地区通电之前,德克萨斯州农村丘陵地带(位于诺顿以南仅816英里处)洗衣的繁重劳动(参见资料5.5)。 9

Brown’s work supports these analyses. In 1919, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that “rural families spent over 10 hours per week pumping water and carrying it from source to kitchen.”7 Brown contends, “Farmwives spent twenty days more per year washing clothes than women in the city using electric washers.”8 In his biography of Lyndon B. Johnson, American biographer Robert Caro describes the intensive labor involved in doing laundry in the rural hill country of Texas—just 816 miles south of Norton—before LBJ orchestrated the advent of electricity in the region in 1938 (see Source 5.5).9

在电力线路和室内管道铺设到千家万户、人们购买洗衣机之前,洗衣方式在几代人中几乎没有改变。1921年,拉思罗普太太在美国农村使用电动洗衣机、吸尘器、熨斗和电灯,但这并不能代表当时农村居民的普遍生活。虽然到1930年,大多数城市居民都享受到了这些便利,但农户家庭要过很多年才能享受到类似的家用科技。 10

The process of doing laundry was largely unchanged across generations until electrical lines and indoor plumbing were extended to people’s homes and people purchased washing machines. Mrs. Lathrop’s use of an electric washing machine, vacuum cleaner, iron, and electric lights in rural America in 1921 did not represent the experiences of her rural peers. Although by 1930 most urban dwellers had such conveniences, it would be years before farm families could take similar advantage of household technology.10

如果拉思罗普夫人能在美国乡村享受到这样的便利,为什么其他人就不能呢?使用洗衣机需要室内管道和冷热水。而且,你首先需要钱来购买洗衣机,支付水电费,为房屋布线,并将电线接入家中。电力公司没有动力将电线延伸到只有少数人能够接入电网的农村地区。大多数农村居民太穷,买不起电器,也付不起日常用电费用(参见资料5.3)。奈伊指出,到20世纪20年代末,美国只有10%的农民家中接入了配电线路,而他们接入电网的费用是城市居民的两倍。 11如果拉思罗普夫人在1921年堪萨斯州的农村地区用上了电,而其他人却没有,那是因为她处于一个特殊的境地。她很富有!

If Mrs. Lathrop could enjoy such amenities in rural America, why couldn’t others? Using a washing machine required indoor plumbing, and hot and cold running water. And you needed the money to buy the appliance in the first place, pay utility bills, wire the house, and bring electrical lines to it. Power companies had no incentive to extend lines to rural areas where only small numbers could tap into them. Most rural residents were too poor to pay for appliances or daily electricity (see Source 5.3). Nye stipulates that the 10% of American farmers who had distribution lines to their homes by the end of the 1920s had paid double the urban rate to get connected to the grid.11 If Lathrop had electricity in rural Kansas in 1921 while others didn’t, it is because she was in a rare position. She was rich!

拉思罗普夫人的农村同胞们直到罗斯福新政时期才盼来电力。始于1938年的农村电气化管理局(REA)向农民合作社提供资金、设备和技术支持。一年后,四分之一的农场用上了电。 12 第二次世界大战延缓了电力普及的步伐;到1944年,美国只有45%的农场通了电。13与之形成鲜明对比的是,在商业和公民利益的推动下,电力迅速普及到城市。城市居民受益于连接企业和工厂的输电线路,而郊区居民则利用有轨电车线路与市中心连接。

Mrs. Lathrop’s rural peers had to wait until the New Deal before they could hope for electricity. Begun in 1938, the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) lent money, equipment, and expertise to farmers’ cooperatives. A year later, a quarter of all farms had electrical service.12 World War II slowed the pace; only 45% of U.S. farms had received electricity by 1944.13 In contrast, spurred by business and civic interests, electricity came quickly to cities. Urban dwellers benefited from lines that connected businesses and factories, while suburban residents took advantage of electrical trolley lines connecting them to city centers.

拉思罗普夫人的家与大多数农村家庭的居住环境形成了鲜明对比,这凸显了她的上层阶级背景。1920年,美国只有35%的家庭用上了电,这意味着拉思罗普夫人的生活水平高于大多数美国人。 14这些新型电器设备的主要受益者是富人。历史学家露丝·施瓦茨·考恩发现,在36个美国城市的富裕家庭中,80%的人用上了电。1926年,吸尘器和洗衣机已普及。 15 1921年,电炉和洗衣机在上层阶级家庭中更为常见。 16 1935年,印第安纳州芒西市60%的家庭拥有燃气或电炉,50%的家庭拥有吸尘器。 17拉思罗普夫人14年前在农村地区就拥有这两种电器(参见资料5.2)。 18

The sharp contrast between Mrs. Lathrop’s home and the majority of rural households shines a light on her upper-class background. Given that 35% of all American households had electricity in 1920, Mrs. Lathrop enjoyed a higher standard of living than most Americans.14 The chief beneficiaries of these new electrified gadgets were the wealthy. Historian Ruth Schwartz Cowen found that of the affluent households in 36 American cities, 80% had vacuum cleaners and washing machines in 1926.15 Electric ranges and washing machines were more often found in upper-class homes in 1921.16 In 1935, 60% of families in Muncie, Indiana, owned a gas or electric range and 50% had a vacuum cleaner.17 Mrs. Lathrop had both appliances in a rural area 14 years earlier (compare with Source 5.2).18

1921年,一位富裕女性的生活是怎样的?拉思罗普夫人的信表明,她无需工作就能维持生计。她提到自己担任地区妇女俱乐部官员、镇组织主席和女主人等职务。据考恩所述,这些都是当时上层阶级家庭主妇可能从事的活动。19

What was life like for a woman of means in 1921? Mrs. Lathrop’s letter indicates that she didn’t work to make ends meet. She mentions her roles as officer in the District of Women’s Club, President of the Town Organization, and hostess. According to Cowen, these are the kinds of activities that an upper-class housewife of this era might have engaged in.19

但变革正在悄然发生。在某些情况下,新的省时设备反而让富裕女性承担了更多家务,而非减少。这怎么可能呢?从1900年到1920年,生活水平较高的女性很可能雇佣家政人员来完成诸如洗衣熨烫或打扫房间等家务——对于这个阶层的女性来说,从事如此繁重的体力劳动被认为是有损尊严的。 20拉思罗普夫人关于“几乎所有家务都自己做”的说法21表明她可能雇佣了家政人员。然而,从1920年到1940年,随着家用电器的普及,上层阶级家庭主妇在家中获得的帮助越来越少。即使是举止优雅的女士也能轻松使用洗衣机和吸尘器。 22与世纪之交相比,“这一代生活优渥的家庭主妇学会了在没有佣人帮助的情况下安排家务,或者所需的帮助时间远少于她们的母亲。” 23

But changes were afoot. In some cases, new time-saving devices meant that rich women were doing more housework rather than less. How is that possible? From 1900 to 1920, a woman with a high standard of living most likely had domestic help to complete housework such as washing and ironing laundry or cleaning rooms—tasks involving such heavy labor were considered demeaning for women of this class.20 Mrs. Lathrop’s statement about “doing practically all my own work”21 suggests that she may have had domestic help. However, from 1920 to 1940, upper-class housewives had less and less help in the home as ownership of electric appliances grew. Even genteel ladies could use a washing machine and vacuum cleaner without much toil.22 Compared to the turn of the century, “the average comfortable housewife of this generation learned to organize the work in her household without the assistance of servants or with far fewer hours of assistance than her mother had had.”23

拉思罗普夫人与同龄人的另一个关键区别在于:她是一位大学毕业生。正如教育史学家帕特里夏·阿尔比约格·格雷厄姆所指出的,世纪之交上大学的人寥寥无几——1920年,只有8%的“传统大学适龄人群”接受过高等教育。 24而在拉思罗普夫人可能就读的1900年至1910年间,这一比例仅为4%至5%。 25这些学生来自“比普通民众更富裕、社会地位更高的家庭”。 26 1837年,奥柏林学院成为美国第一所向女性开放的大学。到1910年,女性占本科生总数的近40%。 27到1920年拉思罗普夫人给爱迪生写信时,已有34%的美国女性获得了学士学位或专业学位。28历史学家芭芭拉·所罗门指出,虽然大多数女大学生都结婚了,但她们的结婚人数少于未上过大学的女性,而且结婚年龄也更大。29许多已婚的大学毕业生将重心放在家务和志愿工作上,而不是事业上。1920年,只有9%的美国女性在家庭以外工作,比1900年增加了3.4%。30拉思罗普夫人上过大学,这在当时并不常见,但她将自己的学位用于志愿工作和家务,而不是从事专业工作,这在当时却相当典型。

Mrs. Lathrop was different from her peers in another crucial way: she was a college graduate. As historian of education Patricia Albjerg Graham notes, few people attended college at the turn of the century—in 1920, only 8% of men and women from the “traditional college age group” attended college.24 In 1900–10, when Mrs. Lathrop likely attended, that figure was only 4–5%.25 These students came from families with “greater wealth and higher social status than the population at large.”26 In 1837, Oberlin was the first college in the United States to open its doors to women. By 1910, women made up almost 40% of the undergraduate population.27 By 1920, when Mrs. Lathrop wrote Edison, a total of 34% of American women had received a bachelor’s degree or professional degree.28 Historian Barbara Solomon notes that while most college women married, they did so in fewer numbers than those who didn’t attend college, and at a later age.29 Many married graduates focused on domestic duties and volunteer work rather than a career. In 1920, only 9% of American women worked outside the home, up 3.4% from 1900.30 Mrs. Lathrop was unusual for having gone to college, but fairly typical in using her degree for volunteer and domestic work rather than a profession.

拉思罗普夫人还代表了什么?她无疑代表了电力和家用电器改变女性工作性质后,女性所作出的积极反应。阿拉巴马州早期农村电气化实验的居民反响非常积极。D·克莱顿·布朗报告说:“电力对减轻家务负担的影响最大。妻子们提到,摆脱挑水和照料煤油灯的负担是她们最珍视的解脱。参与者们将更多的时间投入到阅读和听收音机等晚间活动中。” 31 1939年及以后,当电力普及到更多农村居民时,人们的反应也类似。 32照明、休闲时间以及摆脱取水(用于饮用、烹饪、洗澡和洗衣)的繁重劳作,对农村家庭来说都是令人欣喜的变化。

What else does Mrs. Lathrop represent? She certainly represents the positive reaction of women once electricity and household appliances changed the nature of women’s work. Residents’ reactions to an early Alabama experiment in rural electrification were overwhelmingly positive. D. Clayton Brown reports, “Electricity had [the] greatest impact in easing the burden of keeping house. Wives mentioned freedom from carrying water and caring for kerosene lamps as their most prized releases from drudgery. Participants devoted more time to evening activities such as reading and listening to the radio.”31 When electricity reached more rural residents in 1939 and beyond, reactions were similar.32 Lighting, time for leisure, and a break from the grueling toil of fetching water for drinking, cooking, bathing, and laundry were all welcome changes in rural homes.

新技术进入拉思罗普太太的家中后,她的生活是否变得更加“宜居”了?一天结束时,她是否真的“休息充足,随时准备服侍”丈夫?尽管学者们一致认为电力减轻了繁重的体力劳动,但也有一些学者指出,电力对女性在家庭中的角色产生了意想不到的影响。电力和家用电器的影响远比拉思罗普的信件或人们的直接反应所暗示的更为深远和复杂(参见资料5.4)。历史学家考恩和斯特拉瑟认为,当时女性的工作正处于根本性的变革之中,而这些变革的影响尚未完全显现。

Was life more “livable” for Mrs. Lathrop once the new technology entered her home? Was she truly “rested and ready to serve” her husband at the end of the day? Though scholars agree that electricity reduced backbreaking labor, several point to unexpected consequences it had on women’s role in the home. The impact of electricity and appliances was greater and more varied than either Lathrop’s letter or people’s immediate reactions might suggest (see Source 5.4). Historians Cowen and Strasser argue that women’s work was in the midst of fundamental changes, and the ramifications had not yet been fully realized.

拉思罗普夫人的信表明,1900年代的家庭不再是生产单位,而是消费单位。露丝·施瓦茨·考恩认为这种观点具有误导性,因为它暗示女性因技术变革而获得了新的休闲时间。考恩认为,电力只是改变了家务的性质,并没有消除家务。日益提高的清洁标准增加了女性需要完成的家务量。由于技术使家务变得更容易,人们期望她们更频繁地完成这些家务。虽然吸尘器使清洁地毯变得容易得多,但人们现在期望女性每周吸尘,并且家中一尘不染,而不是像以前那样一年清洁几次地毯,无需担心灰尘。新的清洁标准也适用于洗衣。由于新技术使这些家务看起来很容易,人们期望她们更频繁地完成这些家务。斯特拉瑟解释说:

Mrs. Lathrop’s letter suggests that households in the 1900s were no longer units of production, but had become units of consumption. For Ruth Schwartz Cowen this notion is misleading, as it suggests that women had gained new leisure time as a result of technological changes. Cowen argues that electricity only changed the nature of housework; it didn’t eliminate it. Rising standards of cleanliness now added to the amount of housework women were expected to complete. Because technology made tasks easier, they were expected to be done more often. Although vacuum cleaners made cleaning rugs much easier, women were now expected to vacuum weekly and have no dust in the home rather than clean the rugs a few times per year and not worry about the dust. New standards of cleanliness applied to laundry as well. And because new technology made such tasks seem easy, they were expected to be done more often. Strasser explains,

从长远来看,自动洗衣机或许只是改变了洗衣流程,而非缩短了洗衣时间……在这些机器及其配套洗涤剂、柔顺剂、漂白剂和静电消除剂的广告宣传下,美国人开始更快地决定哪些衣物需要清洗。虽然没有哪一次洗衣会像手洗那样耗费精力或时间……但它确实改变了洗衣方式。每周一次的噩梦变成了永无止境的任务,不仅增加了洗衣量,也增加了大多数家庭用水、燃料和洗衣用品的消耗量,甚至可能还增加了家庭主妇的工作时间,因为现在她的工作时间被分散到了一周的每一天。33

Over the long run, the automatic washer probably restructured rather than reduced laundry time…. Encouraged by advertisements for these machines and for the detergents, fabric softeners, bleaches, and static reducers they used, Americans began to make quicker decisions about what to throw in the hamper. No individual laundry load caused as much fatigue or took as much time as hand-done laundry…. But it changed the laundry pile from a weekly nightmare to an unending task, increasing the size of the pile, the amount of water and fuel and laundry products most households used, and possibly even the housewife’s working time, which was now spread out over the week.33

移民减少、战争爆发、经济萧条以及关于女性角色的新兴意识形态,导致家庭雇佣的佣人数量急剧下降。 34 与此同时,一些家务劳动(洗衣熨烫、地毯清洁)回归家庭,填补了新设备投入使用所节省的时间。正如考恩所解释的那样,

Decreasing immigration, the onset of war, economic depression, and emerging ideology about women’s roles led to a sharp decline in the number of servants employed by households.34 At the same time, returning certain tasks to the home (washing and ironing laundry, carpet cleaning) filled any time gained by the new equipment. As Cowen explains,

拥有本迪克斯洗衣机的妇女会发现洗衣服更容易,但同时,她洗的衣服也会比她的母亲或祖母多,而且大部分衣服都是她自己洗。35

The woman endowed with a Bendix would have found it easier to do her laundry but, simultaneously, would have done more laundry, and more of it herself, than either her mother or her grandmother had.35

在过去,像洗衣这样的家务被认为过于费力,或者有损上层阶级女性的尊严。随着新技术的出现减轻了这些繁重的劳动,所有女性从事这类工作都变得可以接受。 36 最终的结果是,美国女性比以往任何时候都更积极地参与家务劳动。节省下来的劳动力是雇佣的工人,而不是她们自己的。 37

In earlier times, tasks like laundry were deemed too labor-intensive or demeaning for upper-class women. Once the new technology eased the drudgery, it became acceptable for all women to do this kind of work.36 The net effect was that American women were more engaged in housework than ever. The labor saved was hired workers’, not their own.37

科恩在研究20世纪20年代和30年代富裕家庭主妇的时间安排时发现,她们平均花在做家务上的时间并没有显著变化。 38同样,女性的阶级背景反映了电力和技术对家务劳动的影响。贫困的农村妇女直到1939年左右才感受到变化;大多数人直到战后才经历重大改变。只有到了那时,工人阶级妇女才感受到技术进步带来的益处,家务劳动变得不再那么繁重。

When Cowen examined time studies of affluent housewives in the 1920s and 1930s, she found that the average time spent on housework did not change markedly.38 Again, women’s class background reflected the impact of electricity and technology on housework. Rural women without means saw no change until about 1939; most would not experience major changes until after the war. Only then did working-class women feel a boost from technology that made housework less laborious.

在拉思罗普夫人写作的年代,城市中低收入阶层的女性生活水平可能有所提高。这些女性除了家务劳动外,通常还有其他收入来源,因此不太可能花钱请人做基本的家务。然而,尽管新技术、自来水和电力带来了显著的进步,但日益提高的清洁标准以及将家庭生活与女性特质紧密联系在一起的观念,也给所有女性带来了额外的压力。

Urban women of the poorer and middle classes probably experienced an improved standard of living around the time Mrs. Lathrop wrote. These women often earned wages beyond their housework, and would have been less likely to pay others to complete basic household tasks. But even as new technology, running water, and electricity were notable improvements, increasing standards of cleanliness and an ideology that linked domesticity and womanhood put additional pressure on all women.

科恩认为,随着女性在家庭中的角色日益固定,无论阶级如何,她们都变得更加孤立。自工业时代开始以来,女性与丈夫和孩子一起劳动的时间比工业时代之前要少得多。随着电力的出现,这一趋势仍在继续。男性和儿童过去承担的家务(例如砍柴和搬运柴火)如今已不再必要。这解放了男性的时间,使他们能够外出工作。工业化解放了儿童,让他们有时间上学或从事有偿劳动。与此同时,清洁和烹饪等家务仍然保留了下来——而这些工作又落到了女性身上。因此,一些历史学家认为,尽管电力和家用技术的直接影响令人瞩目,但从长远来看,它们只是重新安排了家务劳动,而不是减少了家务劳动。对于许多女性来说,其后果远没有拉思罗普夫人信中所描述的那样积极。

Cowen argues that as their roles became more fixed in the home, regardless of class, women became more isolated. Since the onset of the industrial age, women had worked less alongside their husbands and children than in pre-industrial times. With the advent of electricity, this trend continued. The tasks men and children used to perform (cutting and hauling wood for stoves) were now obsolete. This freed men’s time and enabled them to find work outside the home. Children, freed by industrialization, spent time at school or wage-earning labor. Meanwhile, tasks like cleaning and cooking remained—and they fell to women.39 Thus, some historians argue that even though the immediate impact of electricity and household technology was stunning, in the long run, they simply rearranged, rather than reduced, housework. And for many women, the consequences were not nearly as positive as Mrs. Lathrop’s letter would have us believe.

通过将这封信与一系列其他资料进行比较,我们可以更好地理解拉思罗普夫人所处的历史背景,并更深入地了解她所处的时代以及这封信的具体来源。理解拉思罗普夫人促使我们思考地域和阶级差异。这种更广阔的背景对于理解拉思罗普夫人与20世纪20年代其他女性的异同至关重要。我们往往将技术变革视为进步,而没有充分考虑它们对不同群体的影响。尽管拉思罗普夫人对新技术感到欣喜,但随着时间的推移,这可能意味着她需要承担比以往更多的家务劳动。相比之下,1921年尚未获得权力的贫困农村妇女可能受益最大,因为她们一直以来都承担着家务。无论如何,新技术对女性工作的影响远比拉思罗普夫人的信中所揭示的更为深刻。她的信是了解一个时代的窗口,但也仅此而已。我们只能透过这扇窗口看到一部分。但在窗口之外,是一个更广阔、更复杂的世界,难以用简单的概括来概括。拉思罗普夫人的故事和相关资料有助于我们的学生应对这些复杂情况。

In comparing this one letter to a range of sources, we can appreciate Mrs. Lathrop in her historical context, and better understand both the period and the individual source. Understanding Mrs. Lathrop makes us consider regional and class differences. This broader context is necessary to see Mrs. Lathrop as both similar to and different from other women in the 1920s. We tend to think of the technological changes as improvements without fully considering how they affected different groups. Though Mrs. Lathrop was thrilled with her new technology, over time it meant she probably had to do more housework than before. In contrast, the poor and rural women who were yet to receive power in 1921 likely benefited the most, given that they had always done their own housework. Regardless, the new technology altered women’s work in more profound ways than Mrs. Lathrop’s letter indicates. Her letter is a window on an era, but only that. We can see just as much as that one window allows. But beyond that window is a broader, more complex world that resists facile generalizations. Mrs. Lathrop’s story and the accompanying sources help our students navigate these complexities.

为什么要讲述拉思罗普夫人的故事?

Why Teach About Mrs. Lathrop?

代表性:一封信能告诉我们多少?当学生们第一次读到拉思罗普夫人写给托马斯·爱迪生的信时,许多人得出结论:1921年电力对每个人都产生了积极的影响。他们接受了拉思罗普夫人的印象,并想当然地认为当时所有人对电气化和新电器都有相同的反应。这种概括的倾向很自然,但这样做会让学生们忽略那个时代的复杂性,也忽略了电力和新技术带来的深远影响。

Representativeness: How Much Can We Learn from One Letter? When students first read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter to Thomas Edison, many conclude that electricity positively influenced everyone in 1921. They take Mrs. Lathrop’s impressions and assume that all people at this time had the same reaction to electrification and new appliances. The tendency to generalize is natural, but in doing so, students miss the complexities of the time period and miss the long-range impact of electricity and new technology.

社会心理学家谈到“生动性效应”,即数据的色彩和即时性会影响我们对典型性和代表性的判断。诚然,拉思罗普夫人的信生动地展现了她的生活——作为一份史料,它既富有表现力又令人难忘;而且,由于信的开头有爱迪生的手写批注,它具有其他二手资料难以企及的真实性。

Social psychologists talk about a “vividness effect” in which the color and immediacy of data skew our judgments of typicality and representativeness. To be sure, Mrs. Lathrop’s letter provides a vivid peek inside her life—as a source, it is expressive and memorable, and given Edison’s handwritten note at the top, it possesses an authenticity shared by few secondary sources.

但正是这封信吸引我们的特质,也可能误导我们。拉思罗普夫人的信讲述了爱迪生的发明如何改变了一位受过良好教育、家境优渥的女性的生活。1921年,她拥有的家用电器,大多数美国人直到很久以后才拥有。

But the very qualities that attract us to this letter can lead us astray. Mrs. Lathrop’s letter tells how Edison’s inventions transformed the life of an educated woman of privilege who in 1921 owned appliances that most Americans did not own until much later.

毫无疑问,爱迪生的发明改变了拉思罗普的生活。但这些发明要普及到普通美国民众,尤其是在农村地区,还需要很多年。将拉思罗普夫人的信件与其他文献和数据来源进行比对,能够促使学生进行更批判性的阅读,并将拉思罗普夫人的经历置于历史背景中进行考察。一旦他们开始意识到拉思罗普夫人的经历只是众多类似事件中的一个,他们就能对当时的时代背景、女性历史和科技发展有一个更全面的认识。一封信只能讲述拉思罗普夫人的故事,而无法反映整个国家的历史。

No doubt Edison’s inventions transformed Lathrop’s life. But it would be many years before these inventions would reach the average American, particularly in rural areas. Corroborating Mrs. Lathrop’s letter with other documents and data sources pushes students to read more critically and place Mrs. Lathrop’s experience into historical context. Once they begin to see Mrs. Lathrop’s experience as one of many, they gain a more complex view of the time period, women’s history, and technology. One letter tells us about Mrs. Lathrop; it does not tell us about the country as a whole.

观点:历史视角的比较。我们往往将历史变迁视为从落后状态向先进状态的进步。美国历史教科书也支持这样一种观点:美国的历史是一个永无止境的进步史:每一次历史事件都让我们离建国之初的理想更近一步。然而,事实上,历史变迁对人们的影响各不相同。将历史变迁简单地描述为完全的好或坏未免过于片面。生活远比这复杂得多。

Point of View: Comparing Historical Perspectives. We tend to view historical change as progress from a less enlightened state to an advanced state. U.S. history textbooks support the notion that the American story is one of unending progress: With each event we move closer to the ideals set out in the founding of this nation. In reality, historical changes affect people differently. Portraying historical change as completely good or bad oversimplifies the matter. Life is more complicated.

要了解任何一项技术的影响,我们必须问:谁受益?当学生们核实历史资料时,他们的视野便超越了拉思罗普夫人,得以窥见20世纪20年代其他女性的经历。多元的历史视角能够提供更完整的历史观,并帮助学生理解复杂的因果关系。

To understand the impact of any technology, we must ask: Who benefits? As students corroborate historical sources, they see beyond Mrs. Lathrop and gain a glimpse of other women’s experiences in the 1920s. Multiple historical perspectives can give a more complete view of history and help students see complex cause-effect relationships.

历史证据:利用数字数据和互联网了解过去。本课不仅让学生有机会阅读书面文献,还提供利用数字数据和互联网的机会。通过简单的网络搜索和阅读相关的历史资料,学生可以接触到统计数据,从而将拉思罗普与同时代的人进行比较。由于历史记录并不完整——我们并不确切知道1921年堪萨斯州诺顿镇哪些人拥有电力和家用电器——本课使用来自费城等地和乡村农场的数据来研究城乡差异。从不完整的数据中得出结论总是需要进行推断。但随意猜测和有根据的推断之间有着巨大的差别。本课让学生有机会接触新的证据形式,并教会他们对得出的结论保持谨慎的态度。

Historical Evidence: Using Numerical Data and the Internet to Understand the Past. This lesson not only gives students the chance to read written documents, but also presents an opportunity to use numerical data and the Internet. Through simple web searches and reading accompanying historical sources, students encounter statistical data that allow them to compare Lathrop to her contemporaries. Because the historical record is incomplete—we don’t know exactly who had and didn’t have electricity and appliances in Norton, Kansas, in 1921—this lesson uses data from places like Philadelphia and rural farms to study the difference between urban and rural areas. Drawing conclusions from incomplete data always involves making inferences. But there is a big difference between a wild guess and an educated one. This lesson gives students the opportunity to engage with new forms of evidence and teaches them to be tentative in the conclusions they draw.

你会如何使用这些材料?

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一(1-2小时课程)。拉思罗普夫人对20世纪20年代的女性有多大的代表性?利用这些资料和工具,引导学生阅读和分析多种资料,并就她的代表性问题提出基于证据的论点。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in the 1920s? Use these sources and tools to engage students in reading and analyzing multiple sources and creating an evidence-based argument about her representativeness.


CCSS

#1,#7

CCSS

#1, #7


与学生一起阅读拉思罗普夫人的信(资料来源 5.1),并询问他们这封信揭示了 20 世纪 20 年代女性的哪些特征。使用工具 5.1帮助学生将拉思罗普夫人置于当时美国女性的整体背景下进行理解。学生将使用工具 5.1,通过互联网查找拉思罗普夫人的家乡,并访问弗吉尼亚大学在线图书馆数据库中的 1920 年人口普查数据。我们建议学生两人一组或小组合作,以鼓励他们讨论发现,并为他们提供互相帮助的机会。在查阅各种资料并阅读拉思罗普夫人的信后,请学生就拉思罗普夫人的代表性提出论点。这可以作为全班讨论的良好开端。讨论结束后,请学生撰写一篇短文,阐述他们的结论并提供佐证。

Read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter (Source 5.1) with students and ask what it tells them about women in the 1920s. Use Tool 5.1 to help students set Mrs. Lathrop into a broader picture of American women at this time. Using Tool 5.1, students will use the World Wide Web to examine the region Mrs. Lathrop came from and access 1920 Census data at the University of Virginia’s online library database. We suggest having students work in pairs or groups to encourage discussion of discoveries and to give students opportunities to help each other. After consulting various resources and reading Mrs. Lathrop’s letter, students are then asked to make an argument about Lathrop’s representativeness. This is a good starting point for a whole-class discussion. Following the discussion, ask students to write a brief essay giving their conclusions with supporting evidence.

学生可以阅读资料 5.25.3继续探究,这两份资料分别提供了当时一个城市地区的统计数据和美国乡村概况。工具 5.2帮助学生利用这些新资料,从更广泛的视角,探讨拉思罗普夫人在 20 世纪 20 年代美国社会中的典型性。这些资料引导学生不仅要考虑地域差异,还要考虑阶级差异。课后,讨论学生对拉思罗普夫人的看法。要求学生引用证据来支持他们的结论。将这些回答与之前(工具 5.1末尾)的回答进行比较,看看证据是否以及如何改变了他们的结论。讨论结束后,要求学生修改工具 5.2底部问题 8 的结论。学生应使用资料中的证据来解释他们的结论是否发生了变化以及原因。

Students can continue this inquiry by reading Sources 5.2 and 5.3, which give statistics for one urban area and an overview of rural America at the time. Tool 5.2 helps students use these new sources to explore Mrs. Lathrop’s typicality against a much broader portrait of the United States in the 1920s. The sources direct students to consider not only regional differences but class differences, too. At the end of the lesson, discuss students’ ideas about Mrs. Lathrop. Ask students to cite evidence to support their conclusions. Compare these responses to earlier ones (at the end of Tool 5.1) and see how and if the evidence has altered their conclusions. After the discussion, ask students to write a revised conclusion to Question 8 at the bottom of Tool 5.2. Students should use evidence from the sources to explain whether their conclusions have changed and why.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 佐证来源
  • Corroborating sources
  • 来源背景
  • Contextualizing sources
  • 质疑信息来源以确定其代表性
  • Questioning sources to identify representativeness
  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 透视识别
  • Perspective recognition

情景二(1-2小时课程)。20世纪20年代,电力和新技术如何影响人们的生活?利用这些材料引导学生阅读和分析,并就20世纪20年代技术的影响提出基于证据的论点。

Scenario 2 (1–2 Hour Lesson). How did electricity and new technology influence people in the 1920s? Use these materials to engage students in reading and analysis to create an evidence-based argument about the impact of technology in the 1920s.


CCSS

9–10 #6

#9

CCSS

9–10 #6

#9


请学生在开始本课之前重读拉思罗普夫人的信(资料 5.1 ),或者先完成情景 1,然后再进行本课的学习。本课结合了……参考资料 5.45.5,并结合工具 5.3,思考 20 世纪 20 年代电力的影响,让学生思考电力对不同背景女性的影响。

Ask students to reread Mrs. Lathrop’s letter (Source 5.1) before starting this lesson, or complete Scenario 1 and then move on to this lesson, which combines Sources 5.4 and 5.5 with Tool 5.3 to consider the effects of electricity in the 1920s as students ponder the impact of electricity on women from different backgrounds.

首先阅读拉思罗普太太的信。全班或分组,根据信中描述的情况,制作一份拉思罗普太太日常生活的日程表。让学生列出信中能够体现拉思罗普对生活感受的词语和短语。阅读材料5.45.5,比较富裕女性和农村贫困女性的洗衣任务。让学生想象不同的家庭主妇会如何描述她们的生活。学生会用哪些证据来构建这些画面?使用维恩图,让学生与同伴合作,对比上层阶级女性在用电前后的生活。这将帮助学生了解一个社会阶层的变化与延续,以及电力如何改变了她们的家务劳动。

Begin with Mrs. Lathrop’s letter. As a class or in groups, create a schedule of Mrs. Lathrop’s daily life as reported in her letter. Have students list words and phrases from the letter that indicate how Lathrop feels about her life. Have students read Sources 5.4 and 5.5 to compare laundry tasks for affluent women vs. the rural poor. Ask students to imagine how different housewives would describe their lives. What evidence will students use to construct these images? Using a Venn diagram, ask students to work with a partner to contrast the lives of upper-class women before and after electricity. This will give students a sense of change and continuity for one social class, and the ways electricity altered their housework.

图像

本章的一个重点是通过查阅资料来理解20世纪20年代科技的影响。工具5.3将用于评估这一目标。此外,学生可以制作一个T型图,一侧列出科技在20世纪20年代对女性的积极影响,另一侧列出消极影响。请学生写下他们的初步印象,然后在查阅资料的过程中,将想法、引文和信息添加到T型图中。请学生在学习过程中定期回顾并修改他们的初步答案。接下来,请学生围绕以下问题撰写一段文字或一篇完整的文章:1921年科技对女性的影响主要是积极的还是消极的?与所有文章写作一样,请学生引用资料中的证据来支持他们的论点。

A major focus of this chapter is to understand the impact of technology in the 1920s through corroborating sources. Tool 5.3 will assess this objective. In addition, students could create a T chart, with positive influences of technology on women in the 1920s on one side and negative influences on the other. Ask students to give their initial impression and then add ideas, quotations, and information to this chart as they work with the sources. Ask students to revisit their initial responses and revise them periodically throughout the lesson as they learn more. Follow this up with a paragraph or full essay in response to the question: Was the impact of technology on women in 1921 mostly positive or negative? As with every essay, ask students to draw on evidence from sources to support their arguments.


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 佐证来源
  • Corroborating sources
  • 识别新技术带来的后果(因果关系)
  • Identifying consequences of new technology (cause-effect relationships)
  • 基于证据的论证
  • Evidence-based argumentation

情景三(1小时课程)。20世纪20年代的家庭主妇们都担心些什么?利用网络资源,探究20世纪20年代家庭主妇们面临的挑战。

Scenario 3 (1 Hour Lesson). What were housewives concerned about in the 1920s? Use online resources to examine the challenges housewives faced in the 1920s.


CCSS

9–10 #6

11–12 #7

CCSS

9–10 #6

11–12 #7


阅读拉思罗普太太的信,并询问学生信中反映了她怎样的生活方式。为了了解那个时代多位家庭主妇的观点,请访问乔治·梅森大学历史与新媒体中心的“历史要事”(History Matters)网站。在那里,搜索题为“‘我只是一台机器’:家庭主妇分析她们的问题”的资料。

Read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter and ask students what it says about Mrs. Lathrop’s lifestyle. To consider multiple housewives’ perspectives from this era, go to the History Matters website at George Mason University’s Center for History and New Media. There, search for a source housed at History Matters entitled, “‘I am only a piece of machinery’: Housewives analyze their problems.”

在这里,学生可以阅读1923年寄给《妇女家庭伴侣》杂志的信件,信中家庭主妇们分享了她们遇到的家庭问题和解决方法(我们最喜欢的是题为“永不破裂的循环”的那封信)。给学生提出一个引导性问题,例如“你对20世纪20年代的家庭主妇有什么看法?请引用资料中的证据来支持你的结论。”你可以回顾拉思罗普太太的信,看看她与《妇女家庭伴侣》杂志上的女性有何不同。拉思罗普太太可能会给《妇女家庭伴侣》杂志写些什么?无论读者是谁,她的语气是否依然乐观开朗?本课旨在示范历史调查、提问和资料比较的过程。

Here students may read letters sent to the Woman’s Home Companion in 1923 in which housewives shared household problems and solutions (our favorite is entitled “The Unbroken Circle”). Give students a focus question like “What conclusions can you make about housewives in the 1920s? Cite evidence from the sources to support your conclusions.” You can return to Mrs. Lathrop’s letter to see how Lathrop compares to the women of the Woman’s Home Companion. What might Mrs. Lathrop have written to the Woman’s Home Companion? Would her tone have remained as upbeat and happy, regardless of audience? This lesson models the process of historical investigation, questioning, and comparison of sources.

图像

另一项作业(见工具 5.4)要求学生选择 1921 年的四组女性(贫困城市女性、贫困农村女性、富裕农村女性、富裕城市女性),并安排每位女性一天的生活。学生应为每位女性制定一份每日日程表。学生应参考本章内容以及历史与新媒体中心网站上的资料,并引用这些资料,以使学生的作业与 1920 年代美国的真实情况相符。之后,学生可以回答以下问题:拉思罗普夫人对 1921 年的女性有多大的代表性?

An alternative assignment (see Tool 5.4) asks students to select four groups of women in 1921 (poor urban, poor rural, wealthy rural, wealthy urban) and schedule a day from each woman’s life. Students should construct a daily schedule for each woman. Sources from this chapter, as well as those from the Center for History and New Media website, should be consulted and cited to ground students’ work in the realities of 1920s America. Students could then write a response to the question: How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in 1921?

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 佐证来源
  • Corroborating sources
  • 透视识别
  • Perspective recognition
  • 基于证据的论证
  • Evidence-based argumentation

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源5.1亲爱的R.E.迪森先生修改版)

SOURCE 5.1: DEAR MR. EDISON (MODIFIED)


堪萨斯州诺顿,

1921年3月5日

Norton, Kans.

March 5, 1921

爱迪生先生

 

 

非常感谢她等等——

Mr. Edison

 

 

Thank her very much Etc—

尊敬的先生:

Dear Sir:

女性并非总能有机会亲自感谢那些为女性带来便利的物品的发明者……我大学毕业,我的丈夫可能是托皮卡和丹佛之间最知名的外科医生之一。我是地区妇女俱乐部的官员,也是我们镇妇女组织的负责人。

It is not always the privilege of a woman to thank personally the inventor of articles which make life liveable for her sex…. I am a college graduate and probably my husband is one of the best known surgeons between Topeka and Denver. I am an officer in the District of Women’s Club as well as President of our Town Organization.

我们有四个孩子……我们家房子很大,所以你看,几乎所有家务都由我一个人做,我的职责很多,活动也多种多样,但我很享受我的劳动,并不觉得完全忽略了生活的乐趣……房子里用的是电灯。我用西屋牌电炉做饭,用电动洗碗机洗碗。甚至还有一台电风扇帮助房子的一部分区域供暖……我用洗衣机洗衣服,用电动熨斗和卷发器熨衣服。我用电动清洁剂打扫房子。我休息一下,做个电动按摩,用电熨斗卷头发。穿上用马达驱动的缝纫机缝制的睡袍。然后打开留声机要么学一会儿西班牙语,要么听听克莱斯勒格鲁克加利的曲子……医生结束了一天的工作回到家,疲惫不堪,在工作中,电灯的作用几乎和在家里一样重要。他看到的妻子……已经休息好了,准备好服侍疲惫的丈夫,和他讨论一天的事情……

We have four children…. We have a large house so you see when doing practically all my own work, my duties are many and my activities most varied, yet I enjoy my labors and do not feel that I entirely neglect to get pleasure out of life…. The house is lighted by electricity. I cook on a Westinghouse electric range, wash dishes in an electric dish washer. An electric fan even helps to distribute the heat over part of the house…. I wash clothes in an electric machine and iron on an electric mangle and with an electric iron. I clean house with electric cleaners. I rest, take an electric massage and curl my hair on an electric iron. Dress in a gown sewed on a machine run by a motor. Then start the Victrola and either study Spanish for a while or listen to Kreisler and Gluck and Galli…. The Doctor comes home, tired with a days work wherein electricity has played almost as much part as it has at home, to find a wife … who is now rested and ready to serve the tired man and discuss affairs of the day….

或许他会不打招呼就带客人来,但多亏了电和高压锅,女主人才能化解尴尬。事实上,我曾在接到通知一个多小时后,招待过我们州的州长和十几位……公民……

Possibly he brings in a guest without warning but electricity and a pressure cooker save the day for the hostess. Indeed, I’ve entertained the Governor of our State and a dozen of our … citizens at a little more than an hours notice….

请接受一位由衷感激的女士对爱迪生先生的谢意。我知道,像我这样对您心怀感激的人还有很多……

Please accept the thanks Mr. Edison of one most truly appreciative woman. I know I am only one of many under the same debt of gratitude to you….

真挚地,

Sincerely,

WC·拉思罗普夫人

MRS. W.C. LATHROP


来源:摘自 WC Lathrop 夫人 1921 年 3 月 5 日写给 Thomas Edison 的信。

Source: Excerpt from Mrs. W. C. Lathrop’s letter to Thomas Edison, March 5, 1921.


词库

WORD BANK


西屋电气公司——一家成立于1886年的电力公司

Westinghouse—an electric company founded in 1886

熨烫机——一种用于熨烫或抚平衣物的机器

mangle—a machine for pressing or smoothing clothes

Victrola——唱片机品牌

Victrola—a brand of record player

克莱斯勒——20世纪初著名的小提琴家

Kreisler—famous violinist in the early 1900s

格鲁克加利——20世纪初的著名歌手

Gluck and Galli—famous singers in the early 1900s


资料来源5.2 :费城电器所有权(修改

SOURCE 5.2: APPLIANCE OWNERSHIP IN PHILADELPHIA (MODIFIED)


注:1920年,美国有35%的家庭用上了电。其中,绝大多数是城市和郊区住宅。这项针对费城通电家庭的调查显示了当地不同居民拥有的家用电器类型。

Note: In 1920, 35% of American homes had electricity. Of these, the majority were urban and suburban homes. This survey of homes with electricity in Philadelphia shows the kinds of appliances different people owned there.

 

 

1921年费城1300户通电家庭的家用电器拥有情况

Appliance ownership in 1,300 electrified homes, Philadelphia, 1921

图像


来源:CJ Russell,“费城调查”。NELA 大会论文集,1921 年。纽约市联合爱迪生图书馆藏本。引自 David Nye,《电气化美国:新技术的社会意义,1880–1940》(马萨诸塞州剑桥:麻省理工学院出版社,1990 年),第 303 页。

Source: C. J. Russell, “Philadelphia Survey.” Proceedings, NELA Convention, 1921. Copy in the Consolidated Edison Library, New York City. Cited in David Nye, Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880–1940 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 303.


词库

WORD BANK


现代住宅——指新建的住宅

modern homes—refers to homes that were newly built

较好的阶层——指较为富裕或有钱人的住宅

better class—refers to homes of the more affluent or wealthy

渗滤式咖啡壶——一种咖啡机

percolator—a kind of coffee maker


资料来源5.3:美国农村地区电力修改

SOURCE 5.3: ELECTRICITY IN RURAL AMERICA (MODIFIED)


注:以下是一位历史学家对 20 世纪 20 年代和 30 年代农村地区电力供应不足和成本高昂的解释。

Note: Here is one historian’s explanation of the low availability and high cost of electricity in rural areas in the 1920s and 1930s.

1920年的联邦人口普查报告显示,美国600万个农场中,只有452,620个农场通电,643,899个农场有某种形式的自来水……大多数通电的农户集中在新英格兰和西部远郊地区,这两个地区的通电农场比例分别在15%到45%之间。中西部和南部地区的通电率最低,在10%到不足1%之间……

The federal census of 1920 … reported that of the 6,000,000 farms in the United States, only 452,620 had electric lights and 643,899 had some form of running water…. Most of the farm homes with electricity were concentrated in New England and the far West where the number of serviced farms ranged from 15 to 45 percent respectively. The Midwest and South ranked lowest, ranging from 10 percent to less than 1 percent….

在1935年农村电气化管理局(REA)成立之前,电力公司有权农民提供服务,但由于成本高昂,它们要么行动迟缓,要么不愿这样做……

Until the creation of the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) in 1935, power companies had the prerogative to serve farmers, but they were slow or unwilling to do so because of the high cost involved….

成本是服务推广的真正障碍。农村线路每英里造价高达2000美元甚至更高,而由于农村地区通常每英里只有两到五户人家,电力公司预计收入微薄,难以摊销投资。他们更倾向于城市市场。因此,公司希望农民承担初始投资的负担,要求他们支付线路成本或500至1000美元的押金。农村电价也很高,最低用电量约为每千瓦时9至10美分。而城市居民则没有这些不利条件,他们只需支付每千瓦时4至5美分,而且无需承担线路成本。

Cost was the real stumbling block to service. Rural lines cost $2,000 or more per mile, and since there were usually only two to five dwellings per mile in the country, utilities anticipated low revenue to amortize investments. They preferred the urban market. Companies expected farmers, therefore, to bear the burden of the initial investment charging them with the cost of the line, or a $500 to $1,000 deposit. Rural rates were also high, about 9 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for the minimum usage. No such adverse conditions applied to city dwellers who paid 4 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour and were under no obligation to pay for the cost of the line.

很少有农村居民能够负担得起线路费用或押金,而且起初他们也买不起足够的电器来满足享受低电价所需的用电量。结果导致双方陷入无休止的支出循环——用户由于电价高而用电量少,而电力公司则因为用电量低而收取高价。

Few rural homeowners could afford to pay for the lines or make the deposit, nor could they at first afford enough appliances to use the amount of electricity necessary to achieve the advantage of lower rates. The effect was an endless cycle of expense for both parties—recipients of service used little power because of high rates, and the utilities charged such rates because of low usage.


资料来源:摘自 D. Clayton Brown,《美国农村电力:农村电气化之战》(康涅狄格州韦斯特波特:格林伍德出版社,1980 年)。第 xv-xvi 页和第 3-5 页。

Source: Excerpts from D. Clayton Brown, Electricity for Rural America: The Fight for the REA (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980). xv–xvi and 3–5.


词库

WORD BANK


特权——一种专属权利

prerogative—an exclusive right

收入——已赚取的收入

revenue—earned income

分期偿还——逐步偿还

amortize—to gradually pay off

不利的——有损自身利益的

adverse—against one’s interest


资料来源5.4: 20世纪20 年代富裕女性工作(修改

SOURCE 5.4: AFFLUENT WOMEN’S WORK IN THE 1920S (MODIFIED)


注:以下是一位历史学家对20 世纪 20 年代新技术对富裕女性家务劳动影响有限的解释。

Note: Here is one historian’s explanation of the limited effect new technologies had on the household work of affluent women in the 1920s.

这一代生活优渥的家庭主妇学会了如何安排家务,无需佣人帮忙,或者所需的帮手时间远少于她们的母亲。如果佣人被吸尘器取代,那么她们花在打扫地板和地毯上的时间就比她们的母亲要多;如果洗衣妇被洗衣机取代……那么她们花在做家务上的时间,在她们的母亲那个年代都是由其他人完成的……每一个“自己动手”的决定,都意味着家庭主妇要花更多的时间在家务上。在富裕的家庭里,省力设备节省的并非家庭主妇的劳动,而是帮手的劳动。这正是这些年来对富裕家庭主妇进行的所有时间研究的最显著原因……这些研究都表明,无论她们拥有多少家电,拥有多少便利设施,她们每周花在做家务上的时间仍然与她们的母亲大致相同。

The average comfortable housewife of this generation learned to organize the work in her household without the assistance of servants or with far fewer hours of assistance than her mother had had. Where a servant had been replaced by a vacuum cleaner, the comfortable housewife was spending more time than her mother had spent getting the floors and the rugs into shape; where a laundress had been replaced by a washing machine … a housewife was spending time on chores that, in her mother’s day, had been performed by other people…. Every decision to “do it myself” was a decision to increase the time that the housewife would spend at her work. In households that were prosperous, the labor saved by labor-saving devices was that not of the housewife but of her helpers. This is the most salient reason that every time-study of affluent housewives during these years … revealed that no matter how many appliances they owned, or how many conveniences were at their command, they were still spending roughly the same number of hours per week at housework as their mothers had.


来源:摘自 Ruth Schwartz Cowan,《母亲的更多工作:从开放式炉灶到微波炉的家庭技术讽刺》(纽约:基础书籍出版社,1983 年),第 178 页。

Source: Excerpt from Ruth Schwartz Cowan, More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 178.


词库

WORD BANK


富裕的——富有的

affluent—wealthy


资料来源5.5: 20世纪20年代贫困农村妇女工作修改版)

SOURCE 5.5: POOR, RURAL WOMEN’S WORK IN THE 1920S (MODIFIED)


注:以下是一位历史学家对农村妇女在没有电器的情况下洗衣服的漫长过程的解释。

Note: Here is one historian’s explanation of the long process of washing clothes used by rural women without the benefit of electric appliances.

在没有电力的情况下,就连烧开水都是件费力的事。没有电力驱动水泵,取水就只有一种办法徒手取水。一项针对近50万个农户家庭的联邦研究表明,平均每个农户每天用水40加仑。由于平均每个农户家庭有五口人,那么他们每天用水量就高达200加仑,一年下来就是73000加仑。研究还显示,水井距离房屋253英尺,如果要用手抽水并运回家,一年下来需要有人连续工作63天,每天八小时,总共要走1750英里。

Without electricity, even boiling water was work. Without electricity to work a pump, there was only one way to obtain water: by hand. A federal study of nearly half a million farm families would show that, on the average, a person living on a farm used 40 gallons of water every day. Since the average farm family was five persons, the family used 200 gallons … of water each day—73,000 gallons in a year. The study showed that … the well was located 253 feet from the house—and that to pump by hand and carry to the house 73,000 gallons of water a year would require someone to put in during that year 63 eight-hour days, and walk 1,750 miles.

每周,一年到头,风雨无阻,都是洗衣日。洗衣在户外进行。一个巨大的沸水桶悬挂在熊熊燃烧的大火上方,旁边放着三个大大的“三号”锌制洗衣盆……衣服会被放在第一个锌制洗衣盆里搓洗,由一位妇女弯腰在搓衣板上搓洗……

Every week, every week all year long—every week without fail—there was washday. The wash was done outside. A huge vat of boiling water would be suspended over a larger, roaring fire and near it three large “Number Three” zinc washtubs…. The clothes would be scrubbed in the first of the zinc tubs, scrubbed on a washboard by a woman bending over the tub….

然后,农妇会把每件衣服拧干,尽可能地去除脏水,然后放进一大桶沸水中……她会用一种叫做“捶打”的方式来去除剩余的污垢——她站在沸水上方,用木桨或更常见的是用扫帚柄,搅动衣服,让它们在水中翻滚,并把衣服压在桶底或桶壁上,用力地上下左右挥动扫帚柄,持续十分钟到十五分钟……

Then the farm wife would wring out each piece of clothing to remove from it as much as possible of the dirty water, and put it in the big vat of boiling water…. She would try to get the rest [of the dirt] out by “punching” the clothes in the vat—standing over the boiling water and using a wooden paddle or, more often, a broomstick, to stir the clothes and swish them through the water and press them against the bottom or sides, moving the broom handle up and down and around as hard as she could for ten or fifteen minutes….

下一步是将衣物从沸水中转移到三个锌制洗衣盆中的第二个,即“漂洗盆”。……衣物放入漂洗盆后,妇人弯下腰,将每件衣物逐一涮洗。然后她拧干衣物,尽可能地去除脏水,再将衣物放入第三个装有蓝靛的盆中,涮洗——这次是为了让蓝靛充分浸透衣物,使其洁白——之后,她又在装满淀粉的洗碗盆中重复了同样的动作。

The next step was to transfer the clothes from the boiling water to the second of the three zinc washtubs: the “rinse tub.” … When the clothes were in the rinse tub, the woman bent over the tub and rinsed them, by swishing each individual item through the water. Then she wrung out the clothes, to get as much of the dirty water out as possible, and placed the clothes in the third tub, which contained bluing, and swished them around in it—this time to get the bluing all through the garment and make it white—and then repeated the same movements in the dishpan, which was filled with starch.

这时,一桶衣服就洗完了。一周的衣服至少要洗四桶……而且,每次洗完,三个洗衣盆里的水都得换一遍。一个洗衣盆大约能装八加仑水……她用一个能装三四加仑水的桶来装水——那桶水重达二十五到三十磅。

At this point, one load of wash would be done. A week’s wash took at least four loads…. For each load, moreover, the water in each of the three washtubs would have to be changed. A washtub held about eight gallons…. She did the filling with a bucket which held three or four gallons—twenty-five or thirty pounds.

……挑水、擦洗、捶打、冲洗:一位乡村农场主妇要连续几个小时做这些事——而一位城里主妇只需按下电动洗衣机的按钮就能完成。

… Hauling the water, scrubbing, punching, rinsing: a Hill Country farm wife did this for hours on end—while a city wife did it by pressing the button on her electric washing machine.


来源:摘自罗伯特·卡罗,《林登·约翰逊的岁月:通往权力之路》(纽约:阿尔弗雷德·A·克诺夫出版社,1982 年),第 504-509 页。

Source: Excerpt from Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), 504–509.


词库

WORD BANK


获得——接收或占有

obtain—to receive or take possession of

蓝化剂——一种用于增白衣物的物质

bluing—a substance used to whiten clothes

淀粉——一种用于洗衣过程中使织物变硬的物质

starch—a substance used in laundering to stiffen fabrics


工具5.1资源置于背景之中

TOOL 5.1: PUTTING SOURCES INTO CONTEXT


说明:为了更好地理解拉思罗普夫人的世界观,请试着想象一下她写这封信的时间和地点。阅读资料5.1并回答下列问题。

Directions: To better understand Mrs. Lathrop’s view of the world, try to imagine the time and place in which she wrote this letter. Read Source 5.1 and answer the following questions.

  1. 这是在哪里写的?



  2. Where was this written?



  3. 请访问http://maps.google.com/并搜索 Lathrop 夫人的城镇和州。
    1. 这个城镇位于美国哪个地区?



    2. 这个城镇位于该州的哪个地区?



    3. 距离当时最近的两大城市——托皮卡和丹佛——有多远?



  4. Go to http://maps.google.com/ and search for Mrs. Lathrop’s town and state.
    1. In what region of the United States is this town located?



    2. In what part of the state is this town?



    3. How far is it to the closest major cities of that time period—Topeka and Denver?



  5. 前往弗吉尼亚大学图书馆的历史人口普查浏览器(http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu)。
    1. 点击查看1920年人口普查数据。
    2. 搜索两个变量:总人口和每平方英里人口。
    3. 请注意下表中堪萨斯州的数据。
    4. 将堪萨斯州的每平方英里人口与其他州进行比较——滚动到页面底部,按每平方英里人口数降序排列数据。点击“提交”。从上往下数,看看堪萨斯州的人口密度排名如何。
    5. 以堪萨斯州为例,请注意下表中诺顿县的数据。
    6. 将诺顿县的每平方英里人口与其他堪萨斯州县进行比较——滚动到页面底部,按每平方英里人口数降序排列数据。点击“提交”。从上往下数,即可查看诺顿县的人口密度排名。图像
  6. Go to the Historical Census Browser at the University of Virginia’s library (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu).
    1. Click on the 1920 Census data.
    2. Search for two variables: total population and population per square mile.
    3. Note the figures for Kansas in the table below.
    4. Compare the population per square mile for Kansas to other states—go to the bottom of the page and sort the data by population per square mile in descending order. Click “submit.” Count from the top to see where Kansas ranked in terms of population density.
    5. Specifying Kansas, note the figures for Norton County in the table below.
    6. Compare the population per square mile for Norton County with other counties in Kansas—go to the bottom of the page and sort the data by population per square mile in descending order. Click “submit.” Count from the top to see where Norton County ranked in terms of population density.
  7. 你认为拉思罗普太太居住的小镇是乡村、城市还是郊区?为什么?





  8. Would you characterize Mrs. Lathrop’s town as rural, urban, or suburban? Why?





  9. 这份资料是什么时候撰写的?





  10. When was this source written?





  11. 在撰写此文时还发生了哪些其他事件?列举当时发生的三个事件或问题,并解释它们对于理解此文献的重要性。





  12. What else was happening at the time this was written? List 3 events or issues of the day, and explain why they might be important to understanding this source.





  13. 根据拉思罗普太太的信,她拥有哪些物质财产?请列出来。





  14. According to her letter, what material goods does Mrs. Lathrop own? List them.





  15. 列出拉思罗普夫人信中可能表明其社会地位的细节。





  16. List details from Mrs. Lathrop’s letter that might indicate her social status.





  17. 你认为拉思罗普夫人对20世纪20年代堪萨斯州的女性有多大的代表性?请结合你的阅读和研究细节来支持你的答案。
  18. How representative of women in Kansas in the 1920s do you think Mrs. Lathrop was? Use details from your reading and research to support your answer.

工具5.2:将拉思罗普夫人同时代进行比较

TOOL 5.2: COMPARING MRS. LATHROP TO HER CONTEMPORARIES


  1. 1920年堪萨斯州有多少百分比的农场通电?(提示:参见资料5.3









  2. What percentage of farms in Kansas had electricity in 1920? (Hint: See Source 5.3)









  3. 根据资料 5.3,1920年哪些类型的农村或农场家庭用上了电?请结合资料中的证据进行解释。









  4. Based on Source 5.3, what kind of rural or farm households had electricity in 1920? Explain using evidence from the sources.









  5. 为什么农村家庭没有更多用上电?









  6. Why didn’t more rural households have electricity?









  7. 费城位于美国的哪个地区?1920年费城是城市地区还是乡村地区?你是如何判断的?请使用1920年人口普查数据来证明你的答案。









  8. In what part of the country is Philadelphia located? Was Philadelphia an urban or rural area in 1920? How do you know? Use the 1920 Census data to justify your answer.









  9. 拿出你在工具 5.1中为拉思罗普太太列出的物品和电器清单。将她拥有的物品与 1921 年费城贫困家庭、中等家庭和较富裕家庭的物品进行比较。 图像









  10. Take the list of material goods and appliances that you made in Tool 5.1 for Mrs. Lathrop. Compare what she owns with poor, average, and better-class homes in Philadelphia in 1921.









  11. 拉思罗普太太的家庭与农村家庭、城市家庭、上层阶级家庭和下层阶级家庭相比如何?









  12. How does Mrs. Lathrop’s household compare with rural, urban, upper-class, and lower-class households?









  13. 根据这些资料和1920年的人口普查,你能得出关于拉思罗普夫人社会地位的哪些结论?请结合资料中的证据解释你的结论依据。









  14. Based on these sources and the 1920 Census, what conclusions can you make about Mrs. Lathrop’s social status? Explain the basis for your conclusions using evidence from the sources.









  15. 拉思罗普夫人对1921年的女性有多大的代表性?请引用资料中的证据来支持你的观点。
  16. How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in 1921? Cite evidence from the sources to support your ideas.

工具5.3 : 20世纪20年代女性20世纪20年代电力影响

TOOL 5.3: THE 1920S WOMAN: THE EFFECTS OF ELECTRICITY IN THE 1920S


  1. 拉思罗普太太向爱迪生先生描述了她一天中的哪些活动?请参考资料 5.1,列出她的活动。









  2. What does Mrs. Lathrop do during the day that she describes to Mr. Edison? Using Source 5.1, list her activities.









  3. 你认为拉思罗普太太的日常生活与大多数农村家庭主妇的日常生活相比如何?









  4. How do you think Mrs. Lathrop’s daily life compares to that of the majority of rural housewives?









  5. 利用资料 5.45.5,比较 20 世纪 20 年代农村贫困家庭和“舒适”或上层阶级家庭主妇的洗衣过程。



    图像



  6. Using Sources 5.4 and 5.5, compare the process of doing laundry in the 1920s for the rural poor and “comfortable,” or upper-class, housewives.







  7. 重新审视资料 5.1。列出一些词语和短语,以表明拉思罗普夫人对她生活的感受。









  8. Reexamine Source 5.1. List some words and phrases that indicate how Mrs. Lathrop feels about her life.









  9. 你认为拉思罗普夫人为什么在信中没有对电说任何负面的话?









  10. Why do you think Mrs. Lathrop did not say anything negative about electricity in her letter?









  11. 你认为拉思罗普夫人的同龄人,那些生活在没有电的农村地区的人们,会如何描述他们的生活?









  12. How do you think Mrs. Lathrop’s peers in rural areas that lacked electricity would describe their lives?









  13. 根据考恩的说法,电力和新技术是如何改变拉思罗普太太的生活的?(提示:将拉思罗普太太与她的母亲进行比较。使用下面的维恩图来了解这些变化。)



    图像



  14. According to Cowan, how did electricity and new technology change Mrs. Lathrop’s life? (Hint: Compare Mrs. Lathrop with her mother. Use the Venn diagram below to get a sense of these changes.)







  15. 1921年,电力改变了哪些人的生活?这些改变是积极的还是消极的?请结合你所掌握的证据解释原因。
  16. Whose lives were changed by electricity in 1921? Were these changes positive? Explain why or why not, using the evidence before you.

工具5.4评估学生视角、代表性和佐证理解

TOOL 5.4: ASSESSING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF PERSPECTIVE, REPRESENTATIVENESS, AND CORROBORATION


说明:利用所提供的资料,为四位生活在 1921 年的女性制定一天的作息时间表。请引用帮助你制定这些女性作息时间表的资料。

Directions: Using the sources provided, create a schedule for a day in the life of four different women living in 1921. Cite the sources that helped you construct these women’s schedules.

图像

哪个日程安排最像拉思罗普太太的?你是怎么知道的?

Which schedule seems most like Mrs. Lathrop’s? How do you know?

 

 

拉思罗普太太的日程安排与其他人的日程安排相比如何?

How does Mrs. Lathrop’s schedule compare to the other schedules?

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/women/womensbook.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/women/womensbook.html

这个由福特汉姆大学的保罗·哈尔索尔运营的页面,是众多互联网历史资源库之一。该页面专门提供指向北美及世界各地女性历史相关文献和网站的链接。

This page, run by Paul Halsall at Fordham University, is one of several Internet History Sourcebooks. This particular page features links to documents and websites that focus on women’s history both in North America and around the world.

http://www.womenshistorymonth.gov/

http://www.womenshistorymonth.gov/

这个由美国国会图书馆制作的页面,收藏了大量与美国女性历史相关的原始文献。其中包含众多展览和藏品,包括照片、广告、宣传海报和文本文件。

This page, produced by the Library of Congress, has a rich and varied collection of primary documents related to women’s history in the United States. There is a long list of exhibits and collections that include photographs, advertisements, propaganda posters, and text-based documents.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/

该网站由哈佛大学运营,重点关注 1800 年至 1930 年间美国女性的工作。该馆藏包括图像和文本文件。

Run by Harvard University, this site focuses on women’s work in the United States from 1800 to 1930. The collection includes images and text-based documents.

http://www.nwhm.org/exhibits/index.html

http://www.nwhm.org/exhibits/index.html

这个由美国国家妇女历史博物馆运营的页面包含了几个关于美国妇女历史不同方面的网络展览。

This page, run by the National Women’s History Museum, includes several cyber exhibits of different aspects of women’s history in America.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=46#

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=46#

请访问Our Documents.Gov网站(由美国国家历史日、美国国家档案馆和记录管理局、美国自由军团、西门子、美国新闻与世界报道和历史频道合作创建)查看托马斯·爱迪生的电灯泡专利申请。

See Thomas Edison’s patent application for the electric light bulb at this site, run by the Our Documents.Gov website (a cooperative effort by National History Day, National Archives and Records Administration, USA Freedom Corps, Siemens, U.S. News & World Report, and The History Channel).

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=408#LESSON1

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=408#LESSON1

该页面由美国国家人文基金会运营,提供了一系列课程,帮助学生了解 19 世纪末 20 世纪初新技术引入前后人们的生活。

This page, run by the National Endowment for the Humanities, offers a series of lessons to help students understand life before and after new technologies were introduced in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

http://www1.assumption.edu/WHW/

http://www1.assumption.edu/WHW/

本页面由美国国家人文基金会资助,并由圣母升天学院、美国古物学会、教育联盟和伍斯特妇女历史项目联合运营。页面内容涵盖丰富的原始文献资料以及教师资源,并提供将妇女历史融入课程的教学思路。

This page is the product of a grant by the National Endowment of the Humanities and is run by Assumption College, the American Antiquarian Society, the Alliance for Education, and the Worcester Women’s History Project. It includes a rich collection of primary documents as well as teacher resources with ideas for integrating women’s history into the curriculum.

 

 


第六章

CHAPTER 6


“尘土为食,尘土为息,尘土为饮”

“Dust to Eat, and Dust to Breathe, and Dust to Drink”

图像

亚瑟·罗斯坦,农场厕所前堆积的沙子。俄克拉荷马州锡马龙县。1936年4月。农业安全管理局—战时信息办公室照片集。可访问http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/fsa1998018977/PP/查看。

Arthur Rothstein, Sand piled up in front of outhouse on farm. Cimarron County, Oklahoma. April 1936. Farm Security Administration—Office of War Information Photograph Collection. Available at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/fsa1998018977/PP/

“男男女女蜷缩在屋里,出门时用手帕捂住鼻子,戴上护目镜保护眼睛。”约翰·斯坦贝克荣获普利策奖的小说《愤怒的葡萄》开篇便描绘了20世纪30年代中期俄克拉荷马州生活的残酷现实。人们熟悉的生活被尘土吞噬,许多人,就像斯坦贝克笔下的乔德一家一样,被迫逃离家园,去寻找新的生活。乔德一家沿着66号公路跋涉,在加州艰难地寻找稳定的工作,正是斯坦贝克这部自1939年出版以来就吸引着无数读者的故事。这部小说不仅情节引人入胜,更是一部政治和社会批判之作,揭露了加州农场工人遭受的剥削和虐待。

“Men and women huddled in their houses, and they tied handkerchiefs over their noses when they went out, and wore goggles to protect their eyes.” The opening pages of John Steinbeck’s Pulitzer Prize–winning novel The Grapes of Wrath describe the grim realities of living in Oklahoma in the mid-1930s. Life as people knew it disappeared, blown away by the dust, and many, like Steinbeck’s Joad family, fled their homes to make a new life. The Joads’ trip on Route 66 and their struggles to find sustainable work in California are the subject of Steinbeck’s tale, one that has captivated readers since its appearance in 1939. Not only is it an engaging story, Steinbeck’s novel was a political and social critique that exposed the exploitation and mistreatment of California’s farm workers.

许多人都熟悉20世纪30年代“尘暴”时期离开受灾地区的人们的故事。俄克拉荷马人、多萝西娅·兰格的照片、伍迪·格思里的歌曲,还有乔德一家——这些细节都深深地烙印在我们的集体记忆中。但是,那些在长达八年似乎永无止境的干旱中没有离开平原的人们呢?那些勇敢的农民的故事呢?他们坚守家园,眼睁睁地看着土地在他们脚下漂移、消失——尘土从没有防护的缝隙中渗入他们的房屋,或者更可怕的是,化作一片黑云,吞噬一切。这些故事不像移民的故事那样能引起人们的共鸣,也不像移民的故事那样具有象征意义。然而,它们和那些更容易被讲述的故事一样,都是我们历史的重要组成部分。

The story of those who left the afflicted region during the 1930s Dust Bowl is familiar to many. Okies, Dorothea Lange’s photos, Woody Guthrie’s songs, and the Joads—these particulars are lodged in our collective memory. But what about the people who didn’t leave the Plains during what seemed an interminable 8 years of drought? What about the stories of the intrepid farmers who stayed behind even as the land drifted and disappeared beneath them—as dust crept into their homes through unprotected cracks or, more ominously, descended in a black cloud that smothered all it touched? Such stories don’t trigger the same recognition or touchstone quality that those of the migrants do. Yet they are just as much a part of our past as those more easily recounted.

历史充满了故事。故事是我们分享过往岁月、理解历史的方式。通常,正是故事激发了我们探索过去及其细节和意义的兴趣。而这些故事需要我们做出无数的选择:我们要讲述谁的故事?我们要关注哪些事件?为了准确地讲述过去的故事,哪些细节至关重要?与斯坦贝克的精彩小说不同,历史故事必须遵循文献记录,并以证据为支撑。¹ 在本章中,我们将探讨关于“尘暴”的各种故事,首先是幸存者的故事,然后是解释的故事——“尘暴”是如何发生的?历史学家不再局限于描述性的故事,而是讲述解释性的故事,他们对这场环境和人为灾难的解释方式也随着时间的推移而不断变化。所有这些方面对于理解“尘暴”以及我们讲述的关于它的故事都至关重要。

History is full of stories. Stories are how we share what happened in bygone days and how we make sense of that past. Often, they are what initially piques our interest to explore the past and its specifics and significance. And these stories require making innumerable choices: Whose story will we tell? What events will we focus on? What are the critical specifics for weaving an accurate story about that past? Unlike Steinbeck’s stunning piece of fiction, historical stories must stick to the documentary record and be supported by evidence.1 In this chapter, we examine various stories about the Dust Bowl, first the stories of those left behind, then stories of explanation—how did the Dust Bowl happen? Historians move beyond descriptive stories to tell explanatory stories, and the ways that they have explained this environmental and human disaster have changed over time. All of these aspects are integral to understanding the Dust Bowl and the stories we tell about it.

我们该讲述谁的故事?

Whose Story Do We Tell?

卡罗琳·亨德森是一位教师,1907年搬到了俄克拉荷马州狭长地带,那一年印第安领地和俄克拉荷马领地合并成为一个州。卡罗琳在那里生活了近60年,遇到了她的丈夫,建立了自己的家园,养育了一个女儿,获得了文学硕士学位,并为杂志和期刊撰稿。她的文章以清晰生动的描述,帮助人们关注到“尘暴”时期居民的苦难。

Caroline Henderson was a schoolteacher who moved to the Oklahoma Panhandle in 1907, the year the Indian and Oklahoma territories joined to become a state. Caroline would spend almost 60 years there, meeting her husband, building a homestead, raising a daughter, earning her master’s degree in literature, and writing for magazines and journals. Her articles, filled with clear and compelling descriptions, helped to bring national attention to the plight of the Dust Bowl residents during its darkest days.

“尘暴区”指的是20世纪30年代遭受侵蚀和沙尘暴袭击最严重的美国大平原地区。该地区涵盖俄克拉荷马州、德克萨斯州、堪萨斯州、科罗拉多州的部分地区,以及新墨西哥州和内布拉斯加州的一小部分地区,面积约1亿英亩,占大平原总面积的三分之一以上。在该地区,“沙尘暴影响区”的范围和位置不断变化,促使历史学家唐纳德·沃斯特将尘暴区称为“一个事件,也是一个地域”。受灾最严重的地区是德克萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州的狭长地带。堪萨斯州的西南角。在风暴最严重的几年(1935-1937 年)之间,这片不断变化的风暴区覆盖了南部平原约 5000 万英亩的土地。

The “Dust Bowl” refers to the region of the Great Plains that suffered the erosion and dust storms in the 1930s most acutely. This region, encompassing parts of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and smaller areas of New Mexico and Nebraska, extended approximately 100 million acres, or over one-third of the Great Plains. Within that region, the “blow area” shifted in size and location, prompting historian Donald Worster to call the Dust Bowl “an event as well as a locality.”2 The hardest-hit areas were the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles and the southwestern corner of Kansas. Between the worst years of the storms, 1935–1937, this shifting blow area covered approximately 50 million acres of the southern plains.

这片区域是美国大陆最后几个有人定居的地区之一。由于树木稀少、降雨稀少、气温高,这里曾被称为“美国大沙漠”和“无人区”。来自水源充足、气候湿润的南部、中西部和东部的移民并不热衷于在这片半干旱的气候下耕作。而促进西部开发的铁路直到1916年才通达俄克拉荷马州狭长地带,进一步加剧了该地区的与世隔绝。

This area was one of the last regions in the continental United States to be settled. With few trees, little rainfall, and high temperatures, it had been called both the Great American Desert and No Man’s Land.3 Settlers from the verdant, water-rich South, Midwest, and East weren’t anxious to try farming in this semi-arid climate. And the railroads that facilitated westward settlement didn’t reach the Oklahoma Panhandle until 1916, adding to the region’s isolation.

卡罗琳·亨德森是20世纪初这片地区定居者中的一员。她见证了这片土地的繁荣时期,当时降雨量正常(尽管仍然稀少),战时粮食需求旺盛,铁路的修建也为经济带来了好运。但她经历的苦难远多于繁荣。而1932年至1940年“尘暴”肆虐期间,这些苦难几乎变得难以忍受

Caroline Henderson was part of the early-20th-century settlement of this region. She would be there during its prosperous years, when normal (if still sparse) rainfall, wartime demand for grain, and the railroad helped create economic good times. But she would suffer more hard times than good. And those hard times became almost unbearable during 1932–1940, the years of the Dust Bowl.4

1935年4月14日,一场巨大的沙尘暴袭击了该地区。科罗拉多州东南部巴卡县的JH·沃德看到一团不祥的浓厚沙尘暴从山上滚滚而来;他拍下了这令人恐惧的景象:沙尘暴逼近,吞噬着沿途的一切(资料来源6.1)。民谣歌手伍迪·格思里在那一天创作了一首名为《再见,很高兴认识你》(So Long, It's Been Good to Know Yuh)的歌曲,歌名令人毛骨悚然。格思里在歌中写道,他不得不离开位于“西德克萨斯平原”的家,因为他“不得不四处漂泊”,更令人不安的是,沙尘暴“如同雷霆般袭来”,仿佛“世界末日”,这捕捉到了邻居们的恐惧。那一天后来被称为“黑色星期日”,很可能是20世纪30年代袭击平原地区最严重的沙尘暴。第二天,“尘暴区”(Dust Bowl)一词就被美联社记者罗伯特·E·盖格创造出来。5

On April 14, 1935, a huge dust storm hit the region. J. H. Ward, in the southeastern county of Baca, Colorado, saw the ominous, thick cloud rolling over the hill toward him; he took photos of what must have been a terrifying sight as the cloud approached, swallowing everything in its path (Source 6.1). Folksinger Woody Guthrie would write a song that day, with the eerie title “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh.” Guthrie wrote about leaving his home on “the west Texas plains,” as he had “to be driftin’ along,” and more ominously that the dust storm “hit like thunder” and seemed like “the end of the world,” capturing the fear of his neighbors. That April day would come to be known as Black Sunday and was likely the worst dust storm that hit the Plains during the 1930s. The very next day, the term “Dust Bowl” was coined by Associated Press reporter Robert E. Geiger.5

在“尘土飞扬的30年代”,被称为“滚滚沙尘”和“黑色暴风雪”的沙尘暴相对频繁。1932年,该地区至少遭受了14次沙尘暴袭击;从1933年到1938年,沙尘暴的次数超过300次。 6 这些沙尘暴大多发生在冬春两季,它们遮天蔽日,席卷大地,侵入房屋、眼睛和肺部——一旦沙尘落下,便无处可逃。各个年龄段的人都患上了“沙尘肺炎”。建筑物和农作物被沙尘覆盖和摧毁,学校和城镇关闭,交通瘫痪,人们不禁怀疑世界末日是否已经降临,以及自己究竟做错了什么才落得如此下场。

Dust storms known as “rollers” and “black blizzards” were relatively frequent in the “dirty ’30s.” In 1932, at least 14 storms hit the region, and from 1933 to 1938, there were more than 300.6 Mostly occurring in the winter and spring, these storms blackened the sky, sweeping over and through the landscape, infiltrating homes, eyes, and lungs—once the dust descended, there was no escape. People of all ages suffered from “dust pneumonia.” Buildings and crops were covered and destroyed, schools and towns shut down, transportation stopped, and people wondered whether Armageddon had hit and what they had done to deserve it.

风暴肆虐了尘暴区,其影响范围远超尘暴区。巨大的尘埃云横跨大陆,抵达东部和南部沿海地区。1934年5月,《纽约时报》的头条新闻宣称:“巨大的尘埃云吹过1500英里,使纽约市昏暗5小时。”据估计,这片尘埃云宽达1800英里,重达3亿吨,使纽约市空气中的尘埃颗粒浓度增加了2.7倍。 7在大西洋沿岸300英里处,船只报告甲板上覆盖着尘土,而后来的风暴则在墨西哥湾沿岸留下了尘埃残留物。 8

The storms wreaked havoc on the Dust Bowl region and extended beyond. Giant clouds of dust advanced across the continent to both Eastern and Southern coasts. In May 1934, headlines in the New York Times proclaimed, “Huge Dust Cloud, Blown 1,500 Miles, Dims City 5 Hours.” That cloud was estimated to be 1,800 miles wide, weigh 300 million tons, and increase the dust particles in the air in New York City by 2.7 times.7 Three hundred miles off the Atlantic Coast, ships reported dust on their decks, while later storms left a residue along the Gulf Coast.8

但正如一位堪萨斯州居民所说,这场“黑色星期日”风暴是“有史以来最黑暗的一天”。9此前几周饱受猛烈风暴侵袭的居民们,对那天早晨的晴朗天气感到格外欣喜。然而,原本阳光明媚、气温在80华氏度左右、视野开阔的周日,却迅速演变成一场可怕的风暴,以至于宝琳·温克勒·格雷后来回忆说,当时她觉得“世界末日到了”。10 这场风暴从北达科他州向南向西,最终抵达堪萨斯州和科罗拉多州,据报道,风暴宽度达200英里,移动速度为每小时65英里。气温骤降;沃德的照片与其他目击者的描述相呼应,展现了晴朗天空与滚滚而来的表层泥土之间的鲜明对比。“天空仿佛被分成了两个截然相反的世界……一片蓝天、金色阳光和宁静;……以及一道翻滚的黑色尘埃幕帘,令人胆寒。” 11在堪萨斯州海斯,一个男孩和朋友玩耍时,他拼命往家跑,却没能躲过沙尘暴——第二天,人们发现他被沙尘掩埋窒息而死。难怪许多人逃离了沙尘暴区。这些沙尘暴如同无情的敌人,肆虐着居民的经济生计、健康和安全,威胁着他们的日常生活。

But the Black Sunday storm was what one Kansas resident called “the darkest day of all.”9 Residents who had suffered ferocious storms in prior weeks welcomed the fine weather that morning. Yet what started as a beautiful Sunday with temperatures in the 80s and a clear view of the horizon quickly descended into a storm so terrible that Pauline Winkler Grey later remembered thinking “it was the end of the world.”10 Moving from North Dakota southerly and westerly into Kansas and Colorado, the storm was reported to be 200 miles wide and moving at 65 miles an hour. Temperatures dropped quickly; echoing other eyewitnesses, Ward’s photograph shows the contrast between the clear sky and the tons of topsoil barreling toward him. “It was as though the sky was divided into two opposite worlds … blue sky, golden sunlight and tranquility; … [and] a menacing curtain of boiling black dust.”11 One boy, playing with a friend in Hays, Kansas, ran for home but couldn’t out-pace the storm—the next day he was found smothered to death by dust. Little wonder that many fled the Dust Bowl. The storms were an implacable enemy that attacked residents’ economic livelihood, health, and safety, and threatened daily life.

然而,有些人留了下来。卡罗琳·亨德森就是大约十个人中在最黑暗的日子里继续留在该地区的七个人之一。1935年4月,她写了一封题为《以尘土为食》的信,寄给了富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福的农业部长亨利·华莱士(资料来源6.2)。在这封长信中,人们可以理解为什么亨德森被誉为向同时代人讲述了“尘暴”居民的经历和勇气的人。亨德森在信中写道,在她作为拓荒者的27年里,这里发生了“奇妙的”变化,“连绵不断的野牛草皮变成了耕地”,杰斐逊式的自耕农生活似乎触手可及。但当干旱和尘埃来袭时,“每日的身体折磨、精神的混乱以及勇气的逐渐消磨”威胁着要摧毁这个梦想。亨德森声称风暴带来的“残酷现实……和剧烈不适”难以描述,但她接着生动地描写了风暴的日常细节。

Yet some stayed. Caroline Henderson was one of the approximately 7 of 10 people who continued to live in the region during its blackest days.12 In April 1935, she penned a letter entitled “Dust to Eat” and sent it to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace (Source 6.2). In the lengthy letter, one sees why Henderson was credited with informing her contemporaries about the Dust Bowl residents’ experiences and courage. Henderson wrote of the “marvelous” changes that had occurred in her 27 years as a homesteader, where “unbroken buffalo grass sod has given way to cultivated fields,” and dreams of a Jeffersonian yeoman farmer’s life seemed within reach. But when drought and dust came, the “daily physical torture, confusion of mind, [and] gradual wearing down of courage” threatened to destroy that dream. Henderson claimed the “bitter reality … and violent discomfort” of the storms were too great to describe, but she goes on to write vividly of their daily details.

亨德森在书中写道,人们怀着希望,付出努力,将大平原改造成农场;她描述了“尘暴”带来的灾难以及政府的应对措施;最后,她以希望作结——正是这份希望,连同她的回忆,让她坚守在自己的农场里。她赞扬联邦政府对该地区的援助,并认为正是这些援助阻止了更多家园和农场的荒废,这一说法后来也得到了历史学家的证实。 13

Henderson wrote of the hope and effort it took to transform the Plains into farms, described the disaster wrought by the Dust Bowl and the government response to that disaster, and ended with hope—a hope that, combined with her memories, held her on her farm. She applauded the federal government’s aid to the region, and credited it with preventing even more abandoned homesteads and farms, a claim later supported by historians.13

劳伦斯·斯沃比达留下了他亲身经历“尘暴”的记录(资料6.36.4)。1929年,斯沃比达定居在堪萨斯州西南角的米德县(离亨德森不远)。他只待了很短的时间,就经历了这场灾难最严重的时期。他1940年出版的《尘暴中的耕作:堪萨斯州的第一手资料》一书也描述了这场灾难及其造成的破坏。“狂风……砍断了植物……然后连根拔起……它们吹走了表层土壤”,留下的土地“几乎像混凝土一样坚硬……[它]的破坏力超乎我的想象”。斯沃比达着重描述了赖以生存的土地的毁灭。他的描述与其他人的说法一致:绿色植物被彻底摧毁,这片地区正在恢复到早期美国人所称的“大美国沙漠”。

Lawrence Svobida left behind his own account of surviving the Dust Bowl (Sources 6.3 and 6.4). In 1929, Svobida settled in Meade County in the southwest corner of Kansas (not far from Henderson). He would stay just long enough to experience the worst of the disaster. His 1940 book, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, also described the disaster and the damage it wrought. The “gales … chopped off the plants … then proceeded to take the roots out…. They blew away the topsoil,” and left behind a ground that was “almost as hard as concrete…. [It was] a destroying force beyond my wildest imaginings.” Svobida focused on the destruction of the land that was the farmer’s lifeblood. His account reiterated what others said, that green plant life was wiped out and the region was reverting to what earlier Americans had called it: the Great American Desert.

那么,在“尘暴”时期经历苦难究竟是怎样的体验?虽然留守者的故事不如移民的故事那样广为人知,但他们的经历却为我们展现了一段鲜为人知的历史,让我们得以窥见其残酷的过往。记者蒂莫西·伊根在其2006年出版的著作《美国尘暴幸存者》中,将他们的故事称为“最艰难的时期”。该书荣获三项大奖,足以证明这些被忽视的故事所蕴含的力量。

So what was it like to endure the Dust Bowl? Although not as well known as those of the migrants, the stories of those who stayed give us a dramatic view into a past we would otherwise miss. In his 2006 book, subtitled “Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl,” journalist Timothy Egan called their story The Worst Hard Time. The book received three awards, testifying to the power of these overlooked stories.

沙尘暴的成因是什么?我们应该讲述怎样的故事?

What Caused the Dust Bowl? What Story Do We Tell?

然而,关于这场灾难还有其他故事可讲。历史学家讲述故事是为了解释事件发生的原因。原始资料是这些解释的重要证据来源之一,亨德森和斯沃比达的摘录都让我们得以窥见“尘暴”的成因。

Yet there are other stories to be told about this event. Historians tell stories that explain why events happen. Primary sources are one major source of evidence for those explanations, and both the Henderson and Svobida excerpts provide glimpses into the causes of the Dust Bowl.

亨德森对她在平原地区所见的变化赞叹不已,耕地取代了草皮,新式机械“彻底改变了农耕方式”。而斯沃比达则对这些变化持有不同的看法。他认同“动力农业”的重要影响,但称之为“平原的丧钟”,而非福音。他的回忆录中记录了七次歉收,而亨德森的回忆录则是在她耕作成功四年后撰写的。这些因素或许影响了他们对这场变革的不同看法,但两人都承认大平原发生了翻天覆地的变化,而耕作方式的改变是造成这种变化的主要原因。

Henderson celebrated the changes she saw in the Plains, where cultivated fields had defeated grass sod, and new machinery “revolutionized methods of farm work.” Svobida, on the other hand, viewed the same changes differently. He agreed on the important impact of “power farming,” but called it “the death knell of the Plains” rather than a boon. His memoir recounts seven failed crops, whereas Henderson wrote 4 years earlier, following success in farming her land. These factors may have helped to shape their differing views of the transformation, but both stories recognized that massive changes had occurred to the Great Plains, and that farming methods were largely responsible.

这一结论与当时一份关于沙尘暴成因的报告(资料来源 6.5、6.6和6.7 )的观点一致。1933 年 3富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福总统就职时,沙尘暴正肆虐。1936 年 7 月,总统要求就这场危机的成因提交一份报告,以便采取措施防止再次发生。大平原干旱地区委员会开展了一项“初步研究”,包括查阅现有记录,并对受灾最严重的地区进行了为期两周的考察,考察范围从德克萨斯州狭长地带的阿马里洛一直延伸到北达科他州的拉皮德城。委员会成员包括工程振兴署和负责土地利用、农业和土壤保护的政府机构的领导人。这是一个阵容强大的团队,由农村电气化管理局局长莫里斯·库克担任主席,成员包括安置署署长雷克斯福德·G·塔格韦尔和农业部长亨利·A·华莱士。如此重要的代表团表明,罗斯福认为沙尘暴是一个重要的国家问题——正如他在就职后花费数百万美元用于保护物质资源和援助该地区一样。

This conclusion was shared by a contemporary report into the causes of the Dust Bowl (Sources 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March 1933, the Dust Bowl was in full swing. In July 1936, the president asked for a report on the causes of the crisis so that steps could be taken to prevent another. The Great Plains Drought Area Committee conducted a “preliminary study” that included consulting available records and taking a 2-week trip through the most severely affected areas from Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle to Rapid City, North Dakota. The Committee included leaders of the Works Progress Administration and government agencies in charge of land use, agriculture, and soil conservation. It was an impressive group, chaired by Morris Cooke, Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration, and included Rexford G. Tugwell, Administrator of the Resettlement Agency, and Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture. Such an esteemed delegation indicated that Roosevelt saw the Dust Bowl as an important national problem—as did the millions of dollars spent on conservation of physical assets and aid to the region following his inauguration.

1936年8月底,委员会向总统提交了一份“私人机密”报告。报告包含一些重要结论。持续四年的干旱并非“尘暴”灾难的真正罪魁祸首。“过度耕作、过度放牧和不当的耕作方式”才是罪魁祸首。“错误的公共政策”是造成灾难的主要原因,其中包括美国的宅地政策和对错误农业体系的鼓励。(报告开头的两幅地图显示,大平原地区“降雨量极低”且“风速很高”。它们表明,改变的不是气候,而是定居和耕作模式。)总统委员会发现,防止未来灾难——实际上,确保该地区的未来——取决于“耕作方式与自然条件的契合程度”,而几十年来,这些契合程度一直严重失衡。报告明确指出:“尘暴”并非天灾,而是人为灾难。

At the end of August 1936, the committee issued their “personal and confidential” report to the president. It included important conclusions. The 4 years of drought were not the real culprit for the Dust Bowl disaster. “Over cropping, over grazing, and improper farm methods” were to blame. “Mistaken public policies” were largely responsible, including the country’s homesteading policy and the encouragement of a misguided system of agriculture. (Two maps, early in the report, showed the Great Plains as a region of “predominantly low rainfall” and “high wind velocity.” They made the point that it wasn’t the weather that had changed, but rather the patterns of settlement and farming.) The president’s committee found that preventing future disasters—indeed, ensuring the future of the region—would depend “on the degree to which farming practices conform to natural conditions,” and that these had been badly misaligned for decades. The report was clear: The Dust Bowl was not a natural disaster. It was a man-made one.

该报告包含一系列“行动方针”,其核心是确定土地利用区域,这需要政府的参与和监管。某个区域更适合耕种还是放牧?哪些土地需要开垦为草地?哪些草种最有利于土壤保护?水权需要重新审视,地方、州和联邦政府必须收回私有土地,以便规划和控制其使用。农民需要参与土壤保护,社区需要共同努力,建设更可持续的土地利用区域。救济计划以及政府的参与和监管将有助于促进这些进展。报告呼吁制定“协调合作计划”,并指出:“任何有价值的计划的根本目的都不应是使该地区人口减少,而是使其永久适宜居住。任何其他结果都将是国家的失败,其有形和无形的影响将远远超出受影响地区。”

The report included “lines of action” that centered on identifying land use regions, something that would require government involvement and oversight. Was an area more suited to farming or cattle grazing? Which land would need to be reclaimed as grassland? What kinds of grasses would best conserve the soil? Water rights needed to be reconsidered, and local, state, and Federal governments would have to reclaim private lands in order to plan and control their use. Farmers needed to engage in soil conservation and communities needed to work together to build more sustainable land use regions. Relief programs would help promote these advancements, along with government involvement and regulation. The report called for a “coordinated program of cooperation” and stated, “The fundamental purpose of any worthwhile program must be not to depopulate the region but to make it permanently habitable. Any other outcome would be a national failure which would have its effects, tangible and intangible, far beyond the affected area.”

对于“尘暴”的成因,那些将归咎于变幻莫测的天气的解释对这些调查人员来说几乎毫无说服力。委员会的报告有力地论证了这场人为灾难的本质,其原因不仅在于个别定居者的行为,还在于政府政策与当地环境不符。即便如此,这份报告也未必能改变所有人对这场灾难的看法。对许多人来说,一场雨就能让平原重现往日的繁荣。卡罗琳·亨德森感叹,解决干旱问题的“唯一令人满意的办法”“完全超出了人类的控制”,这种感受在当时十分普遍。居民们祈求降雨,以扭转乾坤。(至少有一个社区采取了极端措施,德克萨斯州达尔哈特镇的居民甚至试图用炸药引爆云层,以求降雨。) 14

Explanations for the Dust Bowl that focused on the vagaries of weather held little sway for these investigators. The committee’s report made a compelling case for a man-made disaster, wrought not only by individual settlers, but also by government policies ill-suited to the region. Even so, the report did not necessarily change everyone’s views of the catastrophe. For many people, rain alone could spell a return of good times to the Plains. Caroline Henderson’s lament that the “one satisfactory solution” to the problem of drought “is beyond all human control” was a common sentiment. Residents prayed for rain to turn their fortunes around. (At least one community took matters into their hands when residents of Dalhart, Texas, tried dynamiting the clouds in order to force rain from them.)14

这份报告提出了“行动方针”,并呼吁各级政府合作“重组农业耕作方式”,表明解决危机的方案并非只有等待降雨。从这个角度来看,这份报告可以被视为一份充满希望的文件,正如卡罗琳·亨德森在最黑暗的风暴中依然坚守希望一样。通过土地复垦、土壤保护和协调一致的努力,可以更明智地耕作大平原,使其永久适宜居住。否则,将被视为“国家失败”。

With its “lines of action” and call for government at all levels to cooperate on the “reorganization of farming practices,” the report suggested that solutions to the crisis existed beyond waiting for rain. In that respect, it can be read as a hopeful document, just as Caroline Henderson held onto hope through the darkest storms. The Plains could be farmed more wisely and made permanently habitable through reclamation, soil conservation, and coordinated efforts. Anything less would be a “national failure.”

事实上,“尘暴”不仅引起了联邦政府的调查,还设立了国家基金和项目,以减轻居民的困境并支持土地的合理利用。第一个应用于该地区的政府项目是由国会发起的一项饲料和种子贷款基金,在红十字会证明其应对能力不足后,该基金最终由赫伯特·胡佛总统勉强批准。平原地区的选民深知需要更多援助,因此在1932年一反常态地投票支持民主党,帮助罗斯福当选总统。面对重重危机,罗斯福在上任后的头100天内通过了一系列新政项目。虽然这些项目没有直接针对“尘暴”地区,但它们设立了一些机构——其中最著名的是农业调整署(AAA)——负责监督后续的援助工作。当旱情急剧恶化,1934年5月24日席卷美国东海岸的巨大沙尘暴来袭时,全国的援助行动迅速展开。

Indeed, the Dust Bowl had not only attracted investigation by the federal government. National funds and programs were set up to ease the hardship of residents and support wise use of the land. The first government program applied to the region was a feed-and-seed loan fund initiated by Congress and reluctantly approved by President Herbert Hoover after the Red Cross had proven inadequate to the task. Plains voters, who knew that more help was needed, uncharacteristically voted Democrat in 1932, helping to elect Roosevelt. Besieged by crises, Roosevelt passed a flurry of New Deal programs in his first 100 days. While none of them directly targeted the Dust Bowl region, they established agencies—most notably the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)—that would oversee later efforts. When drought conditions worsened dramatically and the huge dust storm of May 24, 1934, hit the East Coast, national efforts accelerated.

1934年6月,罗斯福总统推动通过了一项5.25亿美元的旱灾救济方案,其中包括向农民和牧民提供紧急贷款、收入补贴、就业计划以及政府收购牲畜等形式的援助。此外,政府还向减产的农民和牧民支付补贴。援助资金还包括用于购置土地、恢复草地、安置居民以及建立防护林带的资金。此类援助持续了整个30年代,但值得注意的是,减产补贴被取消,因为最高法院在1936年裁定其违宪。(此后,政府的重点转向支持种植保水植物和淘汰耗水作物。)

In June 1934, Roosevelt got a $525 million drought relief package passed that included aid to farmers and cattlemen in the form of emergency loans, income supplements, job programs, and government purchase of cattle. Farmers and cattlemen were also paid for reducing production. Included were monies to acquire lands and return them to grass, relocate residents, and create a shelterbelt of trees. Such aid would continue throughout the decade, with the notable exception of payments for production reduction, which were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1936. (Subsequent efforts shifted to support for planting soil-conserving plants and eliminating soil-depleting crops.)

农民们获得了保护土壤、为未来作物种植做准备的援助。正如斯沃比达所描述的那样,条带耕作——即垂直于风向耕种深沟以最大限度减少风力吹袭——是实现这一目标的核心策略。联邦政府用于支持条带耕作的资金通过地方机构直接发放给农民。这意味着即使在最严重的干旱年份,农民们也有工作可做。

Farmers received aid to conserve their soil for future crops. As Svobida described, strip listing—plowing deep furrows perpendicular to the winds to minimize blowing—was a core strategy for doing this. Federal monies to support strip listing passed through local institutions into farmers’ hands. This meant that farmers had work even during the worst drought years.

20世纪30年代,联邦政府对大平原地区的援助持续不断。这些联邦项目主要有两个目的:一是恢复该地区昔日的生产和繁荣水平;二是保护和维护土地。综合来看,在经济大萧条时期,大平原居民获得的人均援助金额甚至超过了全国其他任何群体。

Federal aid to the Plains area persisted throughout the 1930s. Generally, the Federal programs had two main purposes: restoring the area to former levels of production and prosperity, and conserving and protecting the land. In combination, such aid meant that Plains residents received as much or more per capita than any group in the country during the Great Depression.

人类与自然相互作用。沙尘暴是自然灾害,是极端气候条件造成的吗?还是人类活动导致了这场悲剧?政府1936年的报告对沙尘暴成因的描述是否正确?政府的政策和行动在“肮脏的30年代”的形成和发展过程中扮演了什么角色?

People Acted on Nature. Was the Dust Bowl a natural disaster, the result of severe climate conditions? Or did people’s actions cause this tragedy? Was the government’s 1936 report right in its characterization of causes? What role did government policies and actions play in making and managing the “dirty ’30s”?

历史学家对其中一些问题达成共识,但对另一些问题仍存在争议。第一个问题或许最容易回答。哈里·C·麦克迪恩在1986年发表的题为《尘暴史学》的文章中指出,现代历史学家普遍认为“尘暴并非自然灾害,而是人类破坏自然造成的灾难”。 15

Historians agree on some of these matters, but debate persists on others. The first question is likely the easiest. In a 1986 article titled “Dust Bowl Historiography,” Harry C. McDean identified a consensus among modern historians “that the Dust Bowl was not a natural disaster; it was a disaster caused by what people did to nature.”15

人类究竟对自然做了什么?历史学家唐纳德·沃斯特在其1979年出版的获奖著作《尘暴:20世纪30年代的南部平原》资料来源6.9)中,讲述了这段引人入胜的故事。沃斯特著作的第二部分题为“尘暴前奏”,包含“维系大地的纽带”和“开垦草地”两章。这两个标题概括了过度放牧和大规模耕作如何摧毁了依赖草地的土地。沃斯特写道:“一个古老而独特的生态系统被人类摧毁,失去了抵御自然灾害的缓冲,任由风沙肆虐。这并非自然植被首次大规模死亡,但却是唯一一次因人类蓄意而为之。” 16

What exactly did people do to nature? Historian Donald Worster told a compelling story of these events in his award-winning 1979 book, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s (Source 6.9). Part Two of Worster’s book is entitled “Prelude to Dust” and includes the two chapters “What Holds the Earth Together” and “Sodbusting.” These titles serve as shorthand for the story of how a land dependent on grass was destroyed by overgrazing and extensive farming. Worster wrote, “An old and unique ecological complex has been destroyed by man, leaving him with no buffer against the elements, leaving the land free to blow away. It was not the first time some large part of the natural vegetation had died, but it was the only time that it had happened because of a deliberate strategy carried out by human beings.”16

沃斯特的“很久很久以前”以地质历史开篇,然后探讨了土壤发育、气候模式以及南部平原的动植物。他提到了史前人类和平原印第安人文化,后者“在各方面都接受了草地至上的原则”,并“展现出一种生态克制的模式”。 17 沃斯特将此与印第安人大多被驱赶到保留地后到来的定居者的态度进行了对比。

Worster’s “once upon a time” began with geologic history, then discussed soil development, climate patterns, and the flora and fauna of the southern Plains. He mentioned prehistoric man and the Plains Indian culture, which accepted “in every way the primacy of the grass” and “showed a pattern of ecological restraint.”17 Worster contrasted this with the attitudes of settlers who arrived after the Indians had largely been pushed onto reservations.

南北战争结束后,南部平原才开始有人定居。直到19世纪80年代,前来定居的人们大多从事畜牧业。但命运很快发生了变化:1880年,牧牛人的收入大幅增长,屠宰场也随之兴旺起来。价格上涨,但1886年的严冬重创了牲畜,85%的牲畜死亡。沃斯特称这种命运的逆转预示着未来将发生的事情。19世纪80年代初,平原印第安战争的结束和高于平均水平的降雨量吸引了更多农民来到南部平原,随之而来的是该地区大规模但并不均衡地向农业经济的转型。

The southern Plains were not settled until after the Civil War. Until the 1880s, the settlers who came were mostly involved with raising cattle. Fortunes changed quickly: In 1880 cattlemen earned high slaughterhouse prices, but the harsh winter of 1886 decimated the herds, and 85% perished.18 Worster called this reversal of fortune a harbinger of things to come. The end of the Plains Indian Wars and above-average rainfall in the early 1880s brought more farmers to the southern Plains, and with them, the region’s large-scale if uneven transformation to a farming economy.

由于农业生产的种种变数,加上贫瘠的土壤、周期性的虫害和恶劣的气候,那些来到这里的人谋生十分艰难。许多人转向种植经济作物,尤其是小麦,开垦更多的草皮来种植更多作物,希望能从中获利。1890年至1910年间,农场数量和耕地面积激增。1890年,堪萨斯州、科罗拉多州和德克萨斯州22个县的5762个农场和牧场平均面积为256英亩。到1910年,农场数量及其相对规模都翻了一番。农场继续扩张,1920年平均面积达到771英亩;到1930年,平均面积达到813英亩。随着耕地面积的不断扩大,开垦的草皮也越来越多。在丰收的季节,农民们会种植更多作物以获得更多利润。在歉收期间,他们增加了耕种面积以弥补损失。

Those who arrived struggled to make a living, given the vicissitudes of farming, exacerbated by the difficult soils, periodic pest infestations, and hostile climate. Many turned to cash crops, especially wheat, breaking more sod to plant more crops in hopes of turning a profit. Between 1890 and 1910, the number of farms and amount of land under cultivation soared. In 1890, 5,762 farms and ranches in a 22-county area in Kansas, Colorado, and Texas had an average size of 256 acres. By 1910, the number of farms and their relative sizes had doubled. Farms continued to grow and in 1920 averaged 771 acres: by 1930, the average size reached 813 acres.19 More and more sod was busted as more and more acres were cultivated. During good times, farmers planted additional crops to make more profit. During the bad, they planted more acres to make up their losses.

大平原报告(资料来源 6.56.6 )中的两幅图生动地展现了这些巨大的变化。第一幅图展示了平原最初的地表植被,以草地为主,西部边界和东南部零星分布着一些树木。当时该地区树木和木材稀少,定居者只能用草皮建造房屋。 20第二幅图则展现了耕地面积的迅速扩张,时间跨度从 1879 年到 1929 年,始于平原大规模农业定居之前,终于灾难性的“沙尘暴”时期。在后 30 年里,耕地面积增长了一倍多,总增幅超过 6000 万英亩!

These tremendous changes are captured by two images from the Great Plains Report (Sources 6.5 and 6.6). The first shows the Plains’ original groundcover, dominated by grasses with trees along the western border and occasionally in the southeastern area. Trees and lumber were scarce in the region, and settlers necessarily built homes from the sod itself.20 The second visual shows the rapidly expanding acres dedicated to farming, spanning the years 1879–1929, starting just before large-scale agricultural settlement of the Plains and ending on the cusp of the disastrous Dust Bowl years. The later 30 years saw cultivation increase more than twofold for an absolute total increase of more than 60 million acres!

创新的农用机械提高了开垦草皮和播种的效率,加速了土地从草原到农田的彻底转变。19世纪末的工业革命不仅发生在制造业,也发生在农业领域。农场规模越来越大,越来越像工厂,机器取代了人力。钢犁更容易地翻耕坚硬的草皮,拖拉机取代了马匹进行耕作,而像联合收割机这样的机器可以同时完成多项工作(例如收割和脱粒小麦)。这些农用设备意味着农民可以更快地开垦和耕种土地,而且大大减少了体力劳动。

Innovative farm machinery made breaking the sod and planting crops more efficient, and accelerated the radical remaking of land from grassland to farm. The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century happened not only in manufacturing, but in agriculture as well. Farms became larger and more factorylike, while machines replaced human effort. Steel plows broke the tough sod more easily, tractors replaced horses for tilling, and machines like combines could do several things at once (harvest and thresh the wheat). Such farming equipment meant that farmers could break and farm the land more quickly and with much less elbow grease.

作物增多意味着利润增加。有人将20世纪10年代和20年代称为“大开垦期”。第一次世界大战导致俄罗斯小麦生产停滞,国际粮食需求激增,农民们为了满足战后持续的需求,扩大了耕地面积。整个20年代小麦价格基本保持稳定,拖拉机也持续开垦新的田地。1925年至1930年间,农民们“在南部平原526万英亩的土地上开垦了原生植被——这片土地的面积几乎是罗德岛州的七倍。” 21即使耕作如此频繁,繁荣也并非唾手可得:随着20世纪20年代的到来,农民们面临着购置新机械的成本、微薄的容错空间以及欧洲竞争的卷土重来等诸多挑战。

More crops meant more profit. Some have called the 1910s and 1920s the “Great Plow-up.” When World War I shut down Russian wheat production and increased international demand for grain, farmers expanded their fields to meet demand that persisted beyond the Great War. Wheat prices stayed mostly stable throughout the 1920s, and the tractors kept plowing new fields. Between 1925 and 1930, farmers “tore up the native vegetation on 5,260,000 acres in the southern plains—an area nearly seven times as large as the state of Rhode Island.”21 Even with all this farming, prosperity wasn’t assured: Farmers faced the cost of new machinery, slim margins for error, and the return of European competition as the 1920s roared on.

繁荣时期催生了一种新型的投机者,他们依赖机器,一天就能耕耘数英亩土地,一次就能耕种数百英亩。这些被称为“手提箱农民”的投机者播种后便离开,任凭庄稼能否丰收或歉收。他们并非传统的美国农民,后者在自家农场耕作,与家人共同生活,并以此为生。与长期居住的农民相比,这些佃农和不在本地居住的农民更不关心维持土地的生产力或采用土壤保护措施。在最糟糕的情况下,“手提箱农民”会直接放弃耕种的土地,完全不采取任何保护措施。但事实上,像翻耕作物残茬、轮作、留下裸露的秸秆以稳定土壤——所有这些保护表土的方法——在南部平原的许多农民中并不常见。

Glory times spawned a new kind of opportunist who depended on machines that could plow acres in a day and farm hundreds of acres at a time. Known as “suitcase farmers,” these opportunists would plant a crop and then leave, relying on chance as to whether the crop flourished or withered. These were not the traditional American farmers, working a homestead where their family lived and upon which their livelihood depended. Such tenant and absentee farmers were less likely to care about sustaining the land’s productivity or using soil conservation methods than more permanent residents. In the worst cases, suitcase farmers would simply cut their losses and abandon their tilled fields, applying no conservation methods whatsoever. But, in fact, practices like plowing under crop residue, rotating fields, and leaving bare stalks to stabilize the soil—all of which conserved the topsoil—were not common for many southern Plains farmers.

历史学家意见不一。历史学家们对沙尘暴的成因达成共识,包括破坏草皮、过度耕作、农业机械化以及缺乏土壤保护。但究竟是什么原因促使人们采取这些做法呢?唐纳德·沃斯特认为,正是美国的资本主义文化最终导致了“尘暴”(资料来源 6.8)。“资本主义——无论是工业时代还是前工业时代——对待土地的态度都是帝国主义式的、商业化的;其任何主导价值观都没有教导人们要对环境保持谦逊、敬畏或克制。正是这种文化动力驱使美国人进入草原,并决定了他们利用草原的方式。” 22

Historians Disagree. Historians agreed on many causes of the dust storms, including sod-busting, over-farming, farm mechanization, and lack of soil conservation. But what causes people to engage in these practices in the first place? Donald Worster argued that it was the American culture of capitalism that ultimately caused the Dust Bowl (Source 6.8). “The attitude of capitalism—industrial and pre-industrial—toward the earth was imperial and commercial; none of its ruling values taught environmental humility, reverence, or restraint. This was the cultural impetus that drove Americans into the grassland and determined the way they would use it.”22

唐纳德·沃斯特讲述了一个引人入胜的故事,细节丰富,描写生动,论证有力。这是一个历史故事,它运用多种证据解释了“尘暴”的成因。与其他关于“尘暴”的叙述不同,它将“尘暴”的根源归咎于资本主义对利润的无节制追求。

Donald Worster told a compelling story, richly detailed with vivid descriptions and forceful arguments. It is a historical story, one that explains the Dust Bowl using varied kinds of evidence. And it stands in contrast to other accounts of the Dust Bowl by attributing cause to capitalism’s unbridled appetite for profit.

在沃斯特的著作出版两年后,R·道格拉斯·赫特的《尘暴》一书也认同“人类的居住……以及……对新型农业技术的采用”是造成沙尘暴的原因之一(资料来源6.9)。23然而,赫特并未将资本主义视为主要原因。相反,他讲述了一系列相互关联的因素,平衡了自然因素和人为因素,例如干旱摧毁了原本有助于稳定土壤的作物,以及人类“对土地的技术滥用”。

Published 2 years after Worster’s book, R. Douglas Hurt’s The Dust Bowl agreed that “man’s inhabitation … and … adoption of a new agricultural technology” contributed to the dust storms (Source 6.9).23 However, Hurt did not identify capitalism as the prime cause. Instead, he told a story of interrelated factors, balancing natural and man-made elements, like the drought that wiped out crops that would have helped stabilize the soil, with humans’ “technological abuse of the land.”

这就是历史故事的本质。历史学家可以审视同样的证据,却得出不同的结论。正如人们可以就同一事件提出不同的问题来阐明不同人物的经历一样,历史学家们也从中挖掘出不同的意义。由于沃斯特和赫特等历史学家的研究,我们对“尘暴”的理解发生了改变。此前,“尘暴”大多被描述为一场自然灾害,讲述的是勇敢的农民们在自然灾害面前坚持不懈,最终为我们所有人拯救了大平原的故事。 24另一些人则认为恶劣的环境激发了人类的创新和创造力。25但沃斯特和赫特的研究改变了人们对这一事件的看法。他们不再将自然视为作用于勇敢定居者的主要因素,而是认为正是这些定居者及其文化作用于自然。根据这种观点,造成我们所熟知的“尘暴”苦难的,是人类的傲慢,而非大自然的变幻莫测。

Such is the nature of stories in history. Historians can examine the same evidence and find different meanings in it, just as they can ask different questions about the same event to illuminate varied characters’ experiences. Because of the work of historians like Worster and Hurt, how we understand the meaning of the Dust Bowl has changed. Before, the Dust Bowl was mostly characterized as a natural disaster, a story of brave farmers who persisted in the face of natural disaster and saved the Plains for all of us.24 Others saw the hostile environment as a catalyst for human innovation and ingenuity.25 But Worster and Hurt helped change the lens on this event. Rather than casting nature as the primary agent that acted upon the brave settlers, it was those same settlers and their culture who acted upon nature. According to this view, human arrogance, not Mother Nature’s fickleness, caused the suffering we associate with the Dust Bowl.

“尘暴”究竟是大自然暴力肆虐的故事,还是勇敢的拓荒者在逆境中顽强生存的故事?它是人类掠夺土地、工业化失控、不顾可持续性地使用农用机械的故事吗?还是政府政策如何加速、规范或补救这种掠夺的故事?或许,“尘暴”讲述的是这一特殊事件,是众多因素在特定地点、特定时间汇聚,最终酿成一场完美风暴的故事。26

Was the Dust Bowl a story of nature’s violence unleashed, or one of intrepid settlers who persevered through nature’s hard times? Was it a story of humans exploiting the land, industrialization run amok, and the use of farm machines without regard to sustainability? Or was it the story of how government policies can accelerate exploitation, regulate it, or remedy it? Perhaps the Dust Bowl is the story of the particularity of this one event, how it became a perfect storm of many factors that came together in this particular place at this particular time.26

关于“尘暴”的故事有很多,有些比其他的更可信。有些故事纯属错误,因为它们缺乏证据支持,而且与科学家和历史学家对该事件的认知相悖。另一些故事则基于相同的证据,并且对该事件的事实基本达成共识,但对于造成这些事实的原因却得出了截然不同的结论。正如威廉·克罗农所写,历史学家“将过去的事件构建成因果序列——故事——通过对这些事件进行排序和简化,赋予它们新的意义。” 27解释性的故事需要一个连贯统一的情节,这就要求讲述者在哪些内容重要、哪些内容应该被纳入叙述范围之间做出选择。

There are many stories to be told about the Dust Bowl, some better than others. Some are simply wrong, as they don’t have evidence to support them and are inconsistent with what scientists and historians know about the event. Others alight on the very same evidence and largely agree on the facts of this event, but come to completely different conclusions about what “caused” these facts. Historians, William Cronon wrote, “configure the events of the past into causal sequences—stories—that order and simplify those events to give them new meanings.”27 Stories of explanation require a coherent and unified plot that demands that the teller make choices about what matters and what should be included.

以“尘暴”为例,这个故事讲述了人与自然如何相互影响,以及二者之间密不可分的关系。如果仅仅关注20世纪30年代初的干旱,或者仅仅关注人类对干旱的应对措施,都无法准确描绘出当时平原地区岌岌可危的局势及其成因。人类与赖以生存的星球之间的相互依存关系,引发了我们对自身价值观以及在有限且脆弱的生态系统面前应如何行事的思考。鉴于我们当前面临的挑战——气候变化、人口增长以及对自然资源的持续掠夺——“尘暴”的故事与我们这个时代息息相关。它提醒我们,我们的行为会影响自然界,并决定着自然界能否养活我们不断增长的人口,还是最终沦为人口的牺牲品。

In the case of the Dust Bowl, the story includes how people and nature acted upon one another and are inextricably connected. Focusing solely on the drought of the early 1930s, on the one hand, or on the human response to that drought on the other, gives an inaccurate picture of these precarious times on the Plains and why they occurred. The interdependence between humans and the planet they live on raises questions about what we value and how we should behave in the face of a limited, fragile ecosystem. Given our present challenges—climate change, increasing population, and the ongoing crush for natural resources—the Dust Bowl is very much a story for our times. It reminds us that our actions affect the natural world and can determine whether that world will sustain our growing population or fall victim to it.

为什么要教授有关沙尘暴的历史?

Why Teach About the Dust Bowl?

多元故事及其意义。故事引人入胜,是人类经验中永恒而核心的组成部分。我们讲述故事不仅是为了分享知识,也是为了教导人们分辨是非,启发孩子,并构建社群。故事充满魅力,令人无法抗拒,它们渗透在我们生活的方方面面。

Multiple Stories and Making Sense of Them. Stories captivate. They are an enduring and central piece of the human experience. We tell stories not only to share knowledge, but also to teach the difference between right and wrong, inspire our children, and create community. Engaging and irresistible, stories permeate our lives.

故事是历史的核心。我们用故事来理解过去,历史课上几乎每天都会讲到故事。但是,我们又有多少次引导学生思考某个特定历史事件背后蕴含的多个故事呢?没有任何一个单一的故事能够囊括关于某个历史事件、人物或时代的全部真相。人类的经验太过丰富多样、错综复杂。人们对同一事件的体验各不相同,而动机也可能是隐藏的、多重的。

And they are central to history. We use stories to make sense of the past, and it is a rare day in history class when a story is not shared. But how often do we ask students to consider the multiple stories embedded in a particular historical event? No single story can capture all that is true about a historic event, person, or era. Human experience is too varied and complex. People experience events differently and motivations can be hidden and multiple.

研究“尘暴”历史为我们提供了具体的机会,让我们思考多种不同的叙事方式及其运作机制。许多学生都了解“俄克拉荷马人”(Okies)的故事,但很少有人关注那些留守者的故事。像“当我们只关注‘俄克拉荷马人’时,我们错过了哪些故事?”这样直接的问题,可以帮助学生认识到历史包含着各种各样的视角和经历。

Studying the Dust Bowl offers concrete opportunities to consider multiple stories and how they work. Many students know stories about the Okies, but few have considered the stories of those who stayed behind. A straightforward question like “What stories are we missing when we focus on the Okies?” helps students recognize that history includes a variety of perspectives and experiences.

历史作为解释和框架。为什么会发生“尘暴”?解释过去是历史学家工作的核心,但这对于我们的学生来说未必显而易见。像唐纳德·沃斯特和R·道格拉斯·赫特这样的历史学家,通过叙述来解释他们所研究事件的相互关联的成因。过去,“尘暴”常常被描述为一场自然灾害,仿佛无论人们如何定居和耕作,它都会发生。然而,随着历史学家对定居者的放牧和耕作方式、气候记录、政府政策和立法以及普遍信仰和价值观进行更深入的研究,这种说法已被推翻。学生们可以了解到,历史的作用在于解释,而不仅仅是描述事件。

History as Explanation and Framing. Why did the Dust Bowl happen? Explaining the past is central to the historian’s work, but this is not necessarily obvious to our students. Historians like Donald Worster and R. Douglas Hurt write stories that explain the interrelated causes of the event they investigated. In the past, the Dust Bowl was often depicted as a natural disaster, one that would have happened regardless of the way people settled and farmed the region. However, as historians have looked more closely at the grazing and farming practices of the settlers, at climatic records, government policies and legislation, and common beliefs and values, that story has been overturned. Students can learn that histories explain, rather than merely describe, events.

他们还可以了解美国历史的各个分支领域,以及历史学家如何运用独特的分析框架来研究过去。要解释“尘暴”现象,就需要仔细考察人与自然世界的互动——这正是唐纳德·沃斯特等环境史学家的研究重点。美国历史的各个分支领域(例如环境史、军事史和妇女史)会影响历史学家提出的问题和讲述的故事。

They can also learn about subfields in American history and how historians use distinctive analytic frames to study the past. Explaining the Dust Bowl requires looking closely at interactions between people and their natural world—the focus of environmental historians like Donald Worster. Subfields in American history (e.g., environmental, military, and women’s history) influence the questions historians ask and the stories they tell.

将本研究与科学和英语语言艺术进行跨学科联系。探索“尘暴”时期为整合不同学科、建立跨学科联系提供了契机。学生可以在英语语言艺术课上阅读《愤怒的葡萄》 。在研究那些留在历史课上的人的故事时,我们可以发现虚构作品与历史之间的差异,例如历史叙述和论断需要证据支持。历史侧重于解释,而斯坦贝克则运用故事进行社会批判,两者形成鲜明对比。

Cross-Curricular Connections with Science and English Language Arts. Exploring the Dust Bowl is an opportunity to integrate different subjects and make cross-curricular connections in lessons. Students can read The Grapes of Wrath in English language arts, while studying the stories of those who stayed in their history class. Differences between fiction and history can be highlighted, such as the necessity of evidentiary warrants for historical narratives and claims. History’s focus on explanation can be contrasted with Steinbeck’s use of story for social critique.

这个主题也极具科学研究价值。科学家和科学研究可以携手合作,共同探究沙尘暴的成因以及预防其再次发生的方法。风、气候和土壤结构都是解释沙尘暴成因的关键因素。地理差异、农业科学和耕作技术都影响着沙尘暴的范围和强度。我们可以研究土壤保护方法,并揭示和探究其背后的科学原理。学生们在学习不同学科知识的同时,也能更全面地了解这一事件。

This topic is also ripe for scientific study. Scientists and scientific investigation become allies in figuring out the causes of the Dust Bowl and the methods of preventing another. Wind, climate, and soil patterns all matter in explaining the Dust Bowl. Geographical variations, agricultural science, and farming techniques influenced the extent and ferocity of the dust storms. Soil conservation methods can be examined and the science behind them uncovered and investigated. Students can gain a fuller picture of the event while learning more about different academic disciplines.

促使人们对当代问题进行更深入的研究。我们正处于一场“绿色革命”之中,一场关于我们与地球关系的意识转变。为了赢得选举,政治家们必须在地方和国际环境问题上表明立场,而学区也在采取节能措施,并寻求绿色发展之路。许多学生对环境问题和相关故事很感兴趣,渴望了解更多。本主题及其相关材料正是利用了这种兴趣。作为20世纪30年代一场严重的环境灾难,“沙尘暴”让学生能够从旁观者的角度思考人与环境之间的互动,在这种视角下,情感的淡化反而能带来更深入的分析和对复杂性的包容。这场灾难是否可以避免?应该考虑哪些致灾因素?我们能从这场灾难中吸取哪些教训?

Prompting Further Research into Contemporary Issues. We are in the midst of a “Green Revolution,” a change in consciousness about our relation to the Earth. To get elected, politicians must take stands on local and international environmental questions, while school districts adapt energy-saving measures and look for ways to go green. Many students are captivated by environmental issues and stories and eager to learn more. This topic and the materials associated with it capitalize on such interest. As a severe environmental disaster of the 1930s, the Dust Bowl allows students to contemplate the interaction between people and the environment from a distance, where reduced passions can lead to heightened analysis and tolerance for complexity. Was such a disaster avoidable? What kinds of causal agents should be considered? What lessons can we learn from this event?

这些材料还可以引导学生探究更多当代的荒漠化问题。美国以外的案例研究,例如巴西的森林砍伐或联合国防治荒漠化公约所发起的各项工作,有助于学生认识到环境问题是国际关注的问题,环境灾难不分国界。

These materials can also prompt students to investigate more contemporary desertification problems. Case studies outside the United States, such as deforestation in Brazil or efforts sponsored by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, help students see that environmental issues are international concerns, and that environmental tragedies do not respect political boundaries.

你会如何使用这些材料?

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一(1 小时课程)。讲述的是什么故事?在“打开教科书”课程中,28 名教师利用这些资料加深学生对“尘暴”的理解,并帮助他们认识到教科书描述的局限性。

Scenario 1 (1 Hour Lesson). What story is told? In an “Opening Up the Textbook” lesson,28 use these documents to deepen students’ understanding of the Dust Bowl and help them to recognize the limits of the textbook account.


CCSS

6–8 #2

9–10 #2, #9

CCSS

6–8 #2

9–10 #2, #9


布置课前作业,帮助学生预习。阅读完课本中关于“尘暴”的段落后,学生应该思考:课本是如何描述这一事件的?

Assign homework to prepare for the lesson. After reading the textbook passage that addresses the Dust Bowl, students should consider: What story does the textbook tell of this event?

以这个问题开始本课,并要求学生运用具体事例来阐释和细化教科书中讲述的故事(工具 6.1)。许多教科书都着重描写了因恶劣环境而离开该地区的俄克拉荷马人和其他居民。一些教科书则将“尘暴”描述为一场纯粹由干旱造成的自然灾害。利用合适的文献资料来“打开”这些故事。例如,学生可以阅读并分析文献 6.2、6.3和6.4,了解更多留守者的经历。关于成因,学生可以阅读并分析一些探讨人类活动对该地区影响的文献(从文献 6.5、6.6、6.7、6.8 和 6.9 中选择)无论哪种情况,学生都应围绕以下问题展开思考:这些文献资料为教科书的叙述增添了哪些内容?它们如何支持或反驳教科书的叙述?它们讲述了哪些教科书中没有提及的故事?引导全班学生讨论这些问题,鼓励他们用史料中的证据来佐证自己的观点。最后,强调证据在历史研究中的重要作用,它是历史探究中永恒不变的要素。

Begin the lesson with this question and ask students to use specifics to illustrate and detail the story the textbook tells (Tool 6.1). Many textbooks focus on the Okies and others who left the region because of the terrible conditions. Some textbooks represent the Dust Bowl as a purely natural disaster caused by drought. Use the appropriate documents to “open up” these stories. For example, students can read and analyze Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 to find out more about the experiences of those who stayed. Regarding causes, students can read and analyze some of the documents that address the human impact on the region (select from Sources 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9). In either case, students should be guided by the question(s): What do these sources add to the textbook account? How do they support or contest the textbook story? What story do they tell that is not told by the textbook? Lead a whole-class discussion that explores these questions, prompting students to back up assertions with evidence from the sources. Finally, emphasize the role of evidence in history as the enduring constant in historical investigation.

课程结束时,让学生评价“历史有多种故事和视角”这一说法。指导他们运用当天课程中的信息和案例来强化他们的书面评价。

To close the lesson, have students evaluate the statement, “There are multiple stories and perspectives in history.” Direct them to use information and accounts from the day’s lesson to strengthen their written evaluations.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 识别历史记述中的故事和论点
  • Identifying story and argument in historical accounts
  • 通过考察历史证据,使既有的说法变得复杂化。
  • Complicating accepted stories by examining historical evidence
  • 考虑到多种历史事件的说法
  • Considering multiple stories of historical events

情景二(1-3小时课程)。沙尘暴的成因是什么?利用相关资料引导学生探究这一事件的起因。

Scenario 2 (1–3 Hour Lesson). What caused the Dust Bowl? Use the sources to engage students in investigating the causes of this event.


CCSS

11–12

#3,#7

CCSS

11–12

#3, #7


课程开始时,投影照片(来源 6.1),并请学生注意照片的拍摄日期、内容,思考他们当时看到沙尘暴席卷而来的感受,以及他们对沙尘暴的了解。可以考虑播放伍迪·格思里的歌曲《再见,很高兴认识你》(So Long, It's Been Good to Know Yuh)。(可以在 YouTube 上找到,但请务必选择沙尘暴版本,而不是二战版本。)然后引入本课的核心探究问题:沙尘暴的成因是什么?

Start the lesson by projecting the photo (Source 6.1) and asking students to notice its date, content, how they might have felt seeing the cloud roll toward them, and what they know about the Dust Bowl. Consider playing for students Woody Guthrie’s song, “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh.” (You can find it on YouTube, but be sure to select the Dust Bowl rather than the World War II version.) Then introduce the lesson’s central inquiry question: What caused the Dust Bowl?

学生提出原因后,将他们的答案写在黑板上。接下来的三轮中,学生两人一组,使用配套的文档和练习题(工具 6.2)来帮助他们整理出一份准确的原因清单。每轮文档整理完毕后,带领全班同学进行讨论。讨论环节中,您可以重温引导性问题,并引导学生用文献中的证据来论证他们的答案。利用学生在查阅文献过程中提出的问题,来强调历史挖掘如何能够引出更多的问题。

As students generate causes, list their answers on the blackboard. In three successive rounds, pairs of students then work with document sets and accompanying worksheets (Tool 6.2) to help them craft an accurate list of causes. After each round of documents, lead a whole-class discussion where you revisit the guiding question and prompt students to defend their answers with evidence from the documents. Use questions that students have generated from working with the documents to highlight how historical digging can lead to more questions.

第一轮,学生们研读亨德森和斯沃比达的记述(资料6.2、6.3和6.4 。第二轮,他们使用1936年大平原干旱地区委员会报告的节选(资料6.5、6.6和6.7 。第三轮,学生们参考一些解释性的二手资料(资料6.86.9)。最后,学生们需要回答“是什么导致了沙尘暴?”这个问题。他们的回答应该包含证据,特别是来自文献的直接引语和具体细节,支持他们的论点。

In the first round, students work with the Henderson and Svobida accounts (Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4). In the second, they use excerpts from the 1936 Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Sources 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). In the third round students consider the interpretive secondary accounts (Sources 6.8 and 6.9). Finally, students write an answer to the question, “What caused the Dust Bowl?” Their responses should include evidence, especially direct quotes and specifics from the documents, to support their argument.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 确定历史事件的起因
  • Identifying causes of a historical event
  • 认识到历史中多重因果关系的概念
  • Recognizing the concept of multiple causation in history
  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 综合多个账户
  • Synthesizing multiple accounts

情景三(2小时课程):讲述的是谁的故事?利用现有材料整合英语语言艺术和历史课程,并向学生讲授两者之间的重要区别。(此情景最好与英语语言艺术教师合作完成。)

Scenario 3 (2 Hour Lesson). Whose story is told? Use the materials to integrate English language arts and history curricula and teach students important differences between the two. (This scenario is best executed in collaboration with an English language arts colleague.)


CCSS #9

CCSS #9


课前,请学生阅读约翰·斯坦贝克的小说《愤怒的葡萄》,至少读到第十章,也就是乔德一家离开农场的那一章。课前,提出问题:斯坦贝克的故事讲述的是谁的故事?然后分发斯沃比达和亨德森的文献(资料6.2、6.3和6.4 ,这些文献是由20世纪30年代留在农场的人们撰写的。询问学生这些记录讲述的是谁的故事。这些记录对你们理解“尘暴”有何帮助?

Before the lesson, have students read John Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath, up to at least Chapter 10 where the Joads leave their farm. Start the lesson with the question: Whose story is being told in Steinbeck’s tale? Then pass out the Svobida and Henderson documents (Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4), written by people who stayed on their homesteads during the 1930s. Ask students whose story is told by these accounts. What do these accounts add to your understanding of the Dust Bowl?

将资料 6.2、6.3和6.4确定为研究“尘暴”主要资料。指出历史学家通过分析主要资料来讲述过去的故事。与学生分享其中一位历史学家的记述(资料 6.86.9)。请他们找出摘录中的论点和故事。提问:这位历史学家运用了哪些方法来撰写历史故事?在他们确定了必要的证据和资料来源后,询问斯坦贝克在创作“尘暴”故事时是否也需要这些。用这个例子来区分虚构作品和历史。你也可以将斯坦贝克的小说视为主要资料,因为它提供了对事件和时代背景的深刻见解,但要重申虚构作品和历史遵循不同的规则。

Identify Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 as primary sources for studying the Dust Bowl. Make the point that historians analyze primary sources to tell stories about the past. Share with them one of the historian accounts (Source 6.8 or 6.9). Ask them to identify the argument and story in the excerpt. Ask: What did this historian use in order to write a historical story? After they identify evidence and sources as necessary, ask whether Steinbeck needed these things to write his story of the Dust Bowl. Use this example to distinguish between fiction and history. You may also consider Steinbeck’s novel as a primary source that offers insight into the events and the context of the time, but reiterate the point that fiction and history do not follow the same rules.

通过要求学生写1-3段文字来评估他们是否同意以下观点:“使用虚构和非虚构资料可以帮助我们理解过去。”学生应该表明自己的立场,然后用至少两个具体的例子来支持自己的观点。

Assess students by asking them to write 1–3 paragraphs agreeing or disagreeing with the following statement: “Using both fictional and non-fictional sources can help us understand the past.” Students should take a stance and then explain it using at least two specific supporting examples.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 识别历史记述中的故事和论点
  • Identifying story and argument in historical accounts
  • 区分历史与虚构
  • Distinguishing between history and fiction

情景 4(2 小时课程)。独立研究的跳板:使用这些材料引导学生运用指导性研究来完善故事(参见工具 6.3)。

Scenario 4 (2 Hour Lesson). Springboard to independent research: Use these materials to propel students toward using guided research to elaborate a story (see Tool 6.3).


CCSS(共同核心州立标准),

历史/社会研究读写能力,写作标准

第7条

CCSS,

Literacy in History/Social Studies, Writing Standard

#7


利用之前的某个情境引入“多故事”的概念。在学生识别出至少两个不同的故事后,让他们选择一个进行深入学习。首先,让学生写一段话,讲述他们所了解的故事,并说明他们想要了解更多的内容。然后,引导他们访问相关资源和网络档案,以便他们了解更多相关主题(如需入门,请参阅“推荐资源”部分)。

Use one of the previous scenarios to introduce the idea of multiple stories. After students recognize at least two alternative stories, have them choose one to learn more about. First, have students write a paragraph telling the story as they know it and identifying what they would like to learn more about. Then direct them to resources and Web-based archives where they can learn more about these topics (in order to get started, see the Suggested Resources section).

要求学生找到至少三个能补充他们正在调查的故事的资料来源。学生应分析每个资料来源,并确定其产生的时间、地点和原因;它是二手资料还是一手资料;以及它如何支持、反驳或扩展他们阅读过的其他资料。学生应记录每个资料来源的来源以及分析过程中产生的任何问题。最后,让他们用几个段落复述故事,使用在调查过程中发现的信息、引语和数据,并注明具体佐证的资料来源。

Ask students to find at least three sources that add to the story they are investigating. Students should analyze each source and identify when, where, and why it was produced; whether it is a secondary or primary source; and how it supports, contests, or extends other sources they have read.29 Students should record where they found each source and any questions that arise from their analyses. Finally, have them retell the story in several paragraphs using information, quotes, and data uncovered during their investigation and citing the sources for that specific supporting evidence.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 识别关于同一历史事件的多个版本
  • Identifying multiple stories about the same historical event
  • 寻找历史资料
  • Locating historic sources
  • 分析和核实消息来源
  • Analyzing and corroborating sources
  • 综合多个账户
  • Synthesizing multiple accounts
  • 根据史料构建对过去事件的叙述
  • Building a narrative of a past event based on sources

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源6.1:JH WARD1935年 4 月 14日科罗拉多巴卡拍摄的照片

SOURCE 6.1: PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY J. H. WARD, APRIL 14, 1935, IN BACA COUNTY, COLORADO


图像


来源:JH Ward,《沙尘暴。科罗拉多州。照片。1935年。来自美国国会图书馆,《从大萧条到二战的美国:FSA-OWI照片集,1935-1945》http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@field(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8b26995)

Source: J. H. Ward, Dust storm. Colorado. Photograph. 1935. From Library of Congress, America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photographs from the FSA-OWI, 1935–1945, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@field(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8b26995)

 

 

来源6.2亨德森信函修改版)

SOURCE 6.2: HENDERSON LETTER (MODIFIED)


注:卡罗琳·亨德森教师于1907年在俄克拉荷马州狭长地带开始拓荒生活,并在那里结识了她的丈夫。卡罗琳是一位出版作家,曾为《实用农夫》《女士世界》《大西洋月刊》等杂志撰稿。58岁时,她致信农业部长亨利·A·华莱士,华莱士后来称赞她帮助美国民众理解了农民的困境和勇气。

Note: Teacher Caroline Henderson began homesteading in the Oklahoma Panhandle in 1907, where she met her husband. Caroline was a published writer who wrote for The Practical Farmer, Ladies’ World, and The Atlantic Monthly magazines. At age 58, she wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, who later credited her with helping America to understand farmers’ problems and courage.

 

 

【平原的变化】

[Changes in the Plains]

 

 

二十七年来,这片广袤大平原上的小地方一直是我们的思想、希望和努力的中心。我们见证并参与了这里发生的奇妙变化。

For twenty-seven years this little spot on the vast expanses of the great plains has been the center of all our thought and hope and effort. And marvelous are the changes that we have seen and in which we have participated.

几乎连绵不断的野牛草皮已被耕地取代。早期简陋的小棚屋或地窖已被较为舒适的房屋所取代。古老的道路变成了宽阔平坦的公路。铁路的修建使我们去市场的路程从三十英里缩短到了两英里半。小镇如雨后春笋般涌现,拥有漂亮的房屋、树木、鲜花、学校、教堂和医院。汽车、卡车、拖拉机和联合收割机彻底改变了农业耕作方式和人们的生活方式。1926年的丰收——仅我国就生产了1000万蒲式耳的小麦——据说超过了世界上任何其他同等面积的地区——展现了我们肥沃土壤在现代耕作方式下的无限潜力。似乎我们的梦想终于要实现了……

The almost unbroken buffalo grass sod has given way to cultivated fields. The small rude huts or dugouts of the early days have been replaced by reasonably comfortable homes. The old trails have become wide graded highways. Railways have been built, reducing our journey to market from thirty miles … to two and a half. Little towns have sprung up with attractive homes, trees, flowers, schools, churches, and hospitals. Automobiles and trucks, tractors and combines have revolutionized methods of farm work and manner of living. The wonderful crop of 1926 when our country alone produced 10,000,000 bushels of wheat—more, it was said, than any other equal area in the world—revealed the possibilities of our productive soil under modern methods of farming. It seemed as if at last our dreams were coming true….

 

 

【尘土可食】

[Dust to Eat]

 

 

然而,如今我们每日遭受的肉体折磨、精神上的混乱、勇气的逐渐消磨,似乎让长久以来的希望如同一个即将破灭的梦。因为我们正处于沙尘暴最严重的地区,“以沙为食”不再仅仅是一种比喻,而是对残酷现实的直白描述,而且这种残酷与日俱增。任何试图描述沙尘暴带来的剧烈痛苦的努力,除了那些亲身经历过的人之外,都可能徒劳无功。

Yet now our daily physical torture, confusion of mind, gradual wearing down of courage, seem to make that long continued hope look like a vanishing dream. For we are in the worst of the dust storm area where “dust to eat” is not merely a figure of speech, but the phrasing of a bitter reality, increasing in seriousness with each passing day. Any attempt to suggest the violent discomfort of these storms is likely to be vain except to those who have already experienced them.

这种被风吹起的尘土,细如面粉,无孔不入。“吃尘土”,呼吸尘土,饮用尘土。床上、面粉箱里、碗碟上、墙壁上、窗户上,头发里、眼睛里、耳朵里、牙齿里、喉咙里,到处都是尘土,更不用说在糟糕的日子过后,地板和窗台上堆积如山的尘土了。

This wind-driven dust, fine as the finest flour, penetrates wherever air can go. “Dust to eat,” and dust to breathe and dust to drink. Dust in the beds and in the flour bin, on dishes and walls and windows, in hair and eyes and ears and teeth and throats, to say nothing of the heaped up accumulation on floors and window sills after one of the bad days.

牧场变成了荒芜的废土,简陋小屋周围的院子也变成了尘土飞扬的荒凉景象……

Pastures have changed to barren wastes and dooryards around humble little homes have become scenes of dusty desolation….

 

 

[政府援助]

[Government Help]

 

 

在当前严峻的形势下,除了我们人民坚韧不拔的品格外,联邦政府的各项举措也功不可没。如果没有这些援助,可以肯定的是,大片地区实际上早已荒废……

In this time of severe stress, next to the enduring character of our people credit must be given to the various activities of the federal government. Without some such aid as has been furnished, it seems certain that large sections must have been virtually abandoned….

然而,常识告诉我们,那些不再完全自给自足的地区不能无限期地依赖政府援助。因此,问题依然存在,而唯一令人满意的解决办法却超出了人类的掌控。一些邻居家有小孩,担心孩子健康受到影响,暂时搬走了,“等到下雨再说”。另一些人则永久离开了,他们无疑认为情况不会更糟了。到目前为止,我们和我们的大多数朋友似乎都只能依靠记忆和希望——无论好坏——继续生活下去。

Yet common sense suggests that the regions which are no longer entirely self-supporting cannot rely indefinitely upon government aid. So the problem remains and the one satisfactory solution is beyond all human control. Some of our neighbors with small children, fearing the effects upon their health, have left temporarily “until it rains.” Others have left permanently, thinking doubtless that nothing could be worse. Thus far we and most of our friends seem held—for better or for worse—by memory and hope.


来源:摘自卡罗琳·亨德森于 1935 年 7 月 26 日从俄克拉荷马州狭长地带寄给美国农业部长亨利·A·华莱士的信件。载于阿尔文·O·特纳(编),《尘暴来信》(诺曼:俄克拉荷马大学出版社,2001 年),第 140-142 页;第 146-147 页。

Source: Excerpts from Caroline Henderson’s letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace, sent July 26, 1935, from the Oklahoma Panhandle. In Alvin O. Turner (Ed.), Letters from the Dust Bowl (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 140–142; 146–147.


词库

WORD BANK


广阔的区域

expanses—areas

太棒了——精彩绝伦,伟大

marvelous—wonderful, great

渗透——进入,闯入

penetrates—enters, breaks in

积累——收集

accumulation—collection

贫瘠的——不产出、空旷的

barren—unproductive, empty

荒凉——痛苦、悲伤、绝望

desolation—misery, sadness, despair

持久的——稳定的,持续的

enduring—stable, continuing

无限期地——永远

indefinitely—forever


来源6.3:S VOBIDA账户(修改

SOURCE 6.3: SVOBIDA ACCOUNT (MODIFIED)


注:劳伦斯·斯沃比达是一位年轻的农民,1929年来到俄克拉荷马州,在那里务农直到1939年。八年间,他遭遇了七次歉收。离开时,他写下了他所谓的“真实内幕”,记录了自己的艰辛历程。他想讲述“普通农民”的故事,不加粉饰,因为他认为其他人都这样做了。

Note: Lawrence Svobida was a young farmer who came to Oklahoma in 1929 and farmed there until 1939. He suffered seven crop failures in 8 years. When he left, he wrote what he called a “true inside account” of his struggles. He wanted to share the story of the “average farmer” without sugar-coating it, as he claimed others had.

 

 

狂风植物齐根吹倒,然后连根拔起。它们并未就此罢休。它们吹走了肥沃的表层土壤,露出底土;接着又不断刮走坚硬如混凝土的“硬土层”。

The gales chopped off the plants even with the ground, then proceeded to take the roots out. They did not stop there. They blew away the rich topsoil, leaving the subsoil exposed: and then kept sweeping away at the “hard-pan,” which is almost as hard as concrete.

这和我以前经历过的任何事情都截然不同——一种超乎我最狂野想象的破坏力。当我的一些田地开始被风吹倒时,我完全不知所措

This was something new and different from anything I had ever experienced before—a destroying force beyond my wildest imaginings. When some of my own fields started blowing, I was utterly bewildered.

我向几位经验丰富的邻居请教,但并未得到多少鼓励。据他们说,一旦土地开始被风吹动,作物就很难挽救;唯一已知的控制土壤移动的方法是条带式耕作。这意味着在东西方向上,沿着盛行风的路径,挖出相距二三十英尺的深沟。这样做可以减缓风力在地面的移动,并使细小的粉尘落入敞开的沟渠中

I took counsel with some of my neighbors who had had greater experience, but received little in the way of encouragement. According to their information, there was little hope of saving a crop once the land had started blowing; and the only known method of checking the movement of the soil was the practice of strip listing. This meant running deep parallel furrows twenty or thirty feet apart, in an east and west direction, across the path of the prevailing winds. This tends to check the force of the wind along the ground, and allows the fine siltlike dust to fall into the open furrows.

该地区的每个人都抓住了这个挽救庄稼的渺茫机会。

Everyone in the region grasped at this slim chance to save a crop.


来源:摘自劳伦斯·斯沃比达 (Lawrence Svobida) 的《尘暴中的耕作:来自堪萨斯的第一手资料》,该书于 1940 年首次出版(劳伦斯:堪萨斯大学出版社,1986 年),第 59 页。

Source: Excerpt from Lawrence Svobida, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, first published in 1940 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986), 59.


词库

WORD BANK


大风——强风、暴风雨

gales—strong winds, windstorms

困惑——迷茫

bewildered—confused

沟渠——壕沟、沟槽

furrows—trenches, grooves

普遍的——通常的,主要的

prevailing—usual, main


来源6.4:自然自由修改版

SOURCE 6.4: SVOBIDA ON NATURE (MODIFIED)


在定居者到来和铁丝网入侵之前,这里就已过度放牧。但随着动力农业的引入和迅速发展,大平原的丧钟敲响,美国大沙漠的诞生拉开了序幕。拖拉机和联合收割机将大平原地区变成了一个新的小麦帝国,但这样做也破坏了自然的平衡,而大自然正在进行报复。

Here had been overgrazing before the coming of the settlers and the invasion of barbed wire, but the death knell of the Plains was sounded and the birth of the Great American Desert was inaugurated with the introduction and rapid improvement of power farming. Tractors and combines made of the Great Plains regions a new wheat empire, but in doing so they disturbed nature’s balance, and nature is taking revenge.


来源:摘自劳伦斯·斯沃比达 (Lawrence Svobida) 的《尘暴中的耕作:堪萨斯州的第一手资料》,该书于 1940 年首次出版(劳伦斯:堪萨斯大学出版社,1986 年),第 36 页。

Source: Excerpt from Lawrence Svobida, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, first published in 1940 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986), 36.


词库

WORD BANK


过度放牧——牛吃掉了太多的草

overgrazing—too much grass eaten by cattle

丧钟——宣告死亡的钟声或信号

death knell—bell or signal that announces death

就职典礼——开始

inaugurated—begun


来源6.5地图

SOURCE 6.5: MAP


注:罗斯福总统要求就 1933 年沙尘暴的成因提交一份报告。这张地图是该报告的一部分。

Note: President Roosevelt asked for a report on the causes of the Dust Bowl in 1933. This map was part of that report.

图像


资料来源《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》,该报告于1936年8月27日呈递给罗斯福总统,由包括农业部和土壤保持局在内的八个联邦机构的领导人签署。莫里斯·库克等人,《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》(纽约州海德公园:富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆,1936年)。可访问http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm查阅。

Source: Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service. Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

 

 

来源6.6图表

SOURCE 6.6: GRAPH


图像


资料来源《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》,该报告于1936年8月27日呈递给罗斯福总统,由包括农业部和土壤保持局在内的八个联邦机构的领导人签署。莫里斯·库克等人,《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》(纽约州海德公园:富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆,1936年)。可访问http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm查阅。

Source: Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service. Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

 

 

来源6.7委员会报告(修改

SOURCE 6.7: COMMITTEE REPORT (MODIFIED)


注:1933年,富兰克林·罗斯福总统要求提交一份报告,分析沙尘暴的成因,以便采取措施防止类似灾难再次发生。以下是该报告的节选。

Note: In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt asked for a report analyzing the causes of the Dust Bowl so that steps could be taken to prevent another. Below is an excerpt from that report.

 

 

尊敬的总统先生:

Dear Mr. President:

委员会已对大平原地区的干旱状况进行了初步研究,希望制定一项长期计划,以减轻未来干旱造成的灾难性后果。

… The Committee has made a preliminary study of drought conditions in the Great Plains area with the hope of outlining a long term program which would render future droughts less disastrous….

鉴于降雨量不可能持续增加,除非防止过度耕作、过度放牧和不当耕作方式,否则大平原的农业经济将变得日益不稳定和危险。没有理由相信大平原地区气候的主要因素——温度、降水和风——发生了任何根本性变化。因此,该地区的未来取决于农业实践与自然条件的契合程度。由于目前的情况已超出单个农民的控制范围,农业实践的重组需要包括地方、州和联邦政府在内的众多机构的合作。

The agricultural economy of the Great Plains will become increasingly unstable and unsafe, in view of the impossibility of permanent increase in the amount of rainfall, unless over cropping, over grazing and improper farm methods are prevented. There is no reason to believe that the primary factors of climate temperature, precipitation and winds in the Great Plains region have undergone any fundamental change. The future of the region must depend, therefore, on the degree to which farming practices conform to natural conditions. Because the situation has now passed out of the individual farmer’s control, the reorganization of farming practices demands the cooperation of many agencies, including the local, State and Federal governments.

……错误的公共政策是造成当前局面的主要原因。必须通过新的政策来弥补这一责任。联邦政府必须尽其所能,弥补因错误的宅地政策、因战时需求 刺激 导致的过度耕作和过度放牧,以及因鼓励一种既无法长久又无法繁荣发展的农业体系而造成的损害。

Mistaken public policies have been largely responsible for the situation now existing. That responsibility must be liquidated by new policies. The Federal Government must do its full share in remedying the damage caused by a mistaken homesteading policy, by the stimulation of war time demands which led to over cropping and over grazing, and by encouragement of a system of agriculture which could not be both permanent and prosperous.


资料来源:摘自1936年8月27日呈递给罗斯福总统的《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》,该报告由包括农业部和土壤保持局在内的八个联邦机构的领导人签署(斜体字为原文所有)。莫里斯·库克等人,《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》(纽约州海德公园:富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆,1936年)。可访问http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

Source: Excerpts from Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service (italics added). Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm


词库

WORD BANK


初步的——首先,介绍性的

preliminary—first, introductory

渲染— 制作

render—make

干旱——指天气干燥的时期

droughts—periods of dry weather

降水——雨

precipitation—rain

清算——已解决,已清算

liquidated—settled, cleared up

补救——纠正错误

remedying—making right

刺激——鼓励

stimulation—encouragement

繁荣——经济上的成功

prosperous—financially successful


资料来源6.8:历史学家解释A(修改

SOURCE 6.8: HISTORIAN EXPLANATION A (MODIFIED)


“尘暴”是二十世纪美国南部平原历史上最黑暗的时期。它的名字暗示着一个地方——一个边界如同沙丘般模糊不清、不断变化的地方。但它同时也是一件具有国家乃至全球意义的事件。一位备受尊敬的世界粮食问题权威人士……将“尘暴”的形成列为历史上三大最严重的 生态灾难 之一……“尘暴”的形成仅仅用了50年……它的出现源于当时社会文化的运作方式。美国人以一种冷酷无情、破坏力惊人的效率,横扫了这片资源丰富的土地,其效率之高,其他任何民族都无法比拟。当白人来到这片平原时,他们大谈特谈“开垦”和“征服”这片土地。而他们也的确做到了。有些环境灾难是自然之力,有些则是无知或贫困长期累积的结果。与之相反,沙尘暴是某种文化蓄意、有意识地将征服和剥削土地视为己任的必然结果……

The Dust Bowl was the darkest moment in the twentieth-century life of the southern plains. The name suggests a place—a region whose borders are as inexact and shifting as a sand dune. But it was also an event of national, even planetary significance. A widely respected authority on world food problems, … ranked the creation of the Dust Bowl as one of the three worst ecological blunders in history…. The Dust Bowl took only 50 years to accomplish…. It came about because the culture was operating in precisely the way it was supposed to. Americans blazed their way across a richly endowed continent with a ruthless, devastating efficiency unmatched by any people anywhere. When the white men came to the plains, they talked expansively of “busting” and “breaking” the land. And that is exactly what they did. Some environmental catastrophes are nature’s work, others are the slowly accumulating effects of ignorance or poverty. The Dust Bowl, in contrast, was the inevitable outcome of a culture that deliberately, self-consciously, set itself that task of dominating and exploiting the land for all it was worth….

“尘暴”的出现……是因为美国扩张的势头最终遭遇了一片动荡不安、资源匮乏的土地,破坏了那里原本脆弱的生态平衡。我们谈论平原上的农民和犁铧,以及他们造成的破坏,但这样的描述远远不够。将他们带到这片土地的,是一种社会制度、一套价值观、一种经济秩序……我认为,资本主义才是这个国家利用自然资源的决定性因素。

The Dust Bowl … came about because the expansionary energy of the United States had finally encountered a volatile, marginal land, destroying the delicate ecological balance that had evolved there. We speak of farmers and plows on the plains and the damage they did, but the language is inadequate. What brought them to the region was a social system, a set of values, an economic order…. Capitalism, it is my contention, had been the decisive factor in this nation’s use of nature.


来源:唐纳德·沃斯特(1979 年),《尘暴:20 世纪 30 年代的南方平原》。纽约:牛津大学出版社,第 4-5 页(斜体字为后加)。

Source: Donald Worster (1979), Dust Bowl: The Southern Plain in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 4–5 (italics added).


词库

WORD BANK


生态的——环境的

ecological—environmental

失误——错误、失误

blunders—mistakes, errors

捐赠——有天赋、有资源

endowed—gifted, resourced

冷酷无情——残忍

ruthless—cruel

效率——效能

efficiency—effectiveness

灾难——灾难、悲剧

catastrophes—disasters, tragedies

不可避免的——无法避免的,必要的

inevitable—unavoidable, necessary

扩张性的——扩散

expansionary—spreading out

易变的——不稳定的,不可预测的

volatile—unstable, unpredictable

资本主义——一种以资本私有制为基础的经济体系。

capitalism—an economic system based, among other things, on private ownership of capital


来源6.9历史学家解释B(修改

SOURCE 6.9: HISTORIAN EXPLANATION B (MODIFIED)


南部大平原乃至整个平原地区的沙尘暴并非20世纪30年代独有。自平原形成以来,干旱、植被稀少和风力就一直是沙尘移动的驱动力。消除任何一个致沙因素都会显著减少或消除沙尘暴。然而,当这三个因素同时存在时,沙尘便会肆虐。在19世纪早期及更早时期,当野牛是平原的主要居民时,干旱和草原火灾摧毁了原生草种,使土壤暴露在风蚀之下。然而,在19世纪后期和20世纪早期,其他因素也促成了沙尘暴的发生——尤其是人类在南部平原的定居 以及新型农业技术的采用……

Dust storms in the southern Great Plains, and indeed, in the Plains as a whole, were not unique to the 1930s. Drought, lack of vegetation, and wind have caused the dust to move since the formation of the Plains. The elimination of any one causal element, though will significantly reduce or eliminate dust storms. When all three elements are present, however, the dust blows. During the early nineteenth century and before, when buffalo were the primary occupants of the Plains, drought and prairie fires destroyed the native grass and exposed the soil to wind erosion. Later in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, other factors contributed to dust storms—notably man’s inhabitation of the southern Plains and the adoption of a new agricultural technology….

造成“尘暴”的因素有很多——易受风蚀的土壤、干旱导致固土植被死亡、持续不断的强风,以及加速原生草皮破碎的技术进步。南部平原土壤的特性和周期性的干旱影响无法改变,但对土地的过度技术利用是可以避免的。这并非意味着机械化农业对土地造成了不可逆转的破坏——事实并非如此。诸如拖拉机、单向圆盘犁、播种机和联合收割机等新型改良农具降低了耕作、播种和收割的成本,提高了农业生产力。然而,新技术也带来了负面影响。生产力的提高导致价格下跌,农民为了弥补损失,会开垦更多的草皮种植小麦。与此同时,农民很少考虑如何利用新技术来保护土壤。

Many factors contributed to the creation of the Dust Bowl—soils subject to wind erosion, drought which killed the soil-holding vegetation, the incessant wind, and technological improvements which facilitated the rapid breaking of the native sod. The nature of southern Plains soils and periodic influence of drought could not be changed, but the technological abuse of the land could have been stopped. This is not to say that mechanized agriculture irreparably damaged the land—it did not. New and improved implements such as tractors, one-way disk plows, grain drills, and combines reduced plowing, planting, and harvesting costs and increased agricultural productivity. However, the new technology also had negative effects. Increased productivity caused prices to fall, and farmers compensated by breaking more sod for wheat. At the same time, farmers gave little thought to using their new technology in ways that would conserve the soil.


来源:R. Douglas Hurt (1981),《尘暴:农业和社会史》(芝加哥:Nelson-Hall),第 15、30 页(斜体字为后加)。

Source: R. Douglas Hurt (1981), The Dust Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History (Chicago: Nelson-Hall), 15, 30 (italics added).


词库

WORD BANK


干旱——指天气干燥的时期

drought—period of dry weather

居住——搬入、占用

inhabitation—moving in, occupying

不停歇的——持续不断的,持续的

incessant—nonstop, constant

不可挽回地——永久性地

irreparably—permanently

工具——设备、工具

implements—equipment, tools

补偿——调整,凑合。

compensated—adjusted, made do


工具6.1 打开教科书

TOOL 6.1: OPENING UP THE TEXTBOOK


关于沙尘暴,人们讲述了怎样的故事?

What story is told about the Dust Bowl?

图像

  1. 这本教科书的故事与你读过的其他资料有何异同?



    图像



  2. How is the textbook’s story similar to and different from one of the other sources you read?







  3. 请用一段话,结合你今天读到的内容,评价以下陈述:“历史中有多种故事和视角。”
  4. In a paragraph, evaluate the following statement using evidence from what you have read today: “There are multiple stories and perspectives in history.”

工具6.2 :沙尘暴的成因什么

TOOL 6.2: WHAT CAUSED THE DUST BOWL?


假设:

Hypothesis:

图像

工具6.3研究跳板

TOOL 6.3: SPRINGBOARD TO RESEARCH


  1. 列举你读过的关于沙尘暴的不同故事。







  2. List different stories about the Dust Bowl that you have read.







  3. a. 选择一个你想了解更多的故事,并列在这里。b



    . 写一段简短的文字概括这个故事。c









    . 写下你对这个故事的2-3个疑问。(想想你还想知道什么,以及你有哪些不明白的地方。)







  4. a. Pick one story you would like to know more about and list it here.



    b. Write a short paragraph summarizing this story.









    c. Write 2–3 questions that you have about this story. (Think about what else you want to know and what you don’t understand.)







  5. 找到三个能帮助你了解更多故事背景的资料来源(文件、照片、视频)。请分别填写下表。



    图像



  6. Find three sources (documents, photos, video) that help you learn more about the story. Fill out the following chart for each.







  7. 用 1-3 段话复述这个故事。
    1. 请列出您在调查过程中发现的信息、引语和数据。
    2. 请注明信息/数据/引文的来源。在句末用括号注明来源的作者和日期,格式如下:(作者,日期)。
  8. Retell the story in 1–3 paragraphs.
    1. Include information, quotes, and data that you found in your investigations.
    2. Cite your sources for that information/data/quotes. Include the author and date of the source in parentheses at the end of the sentence so that it looks like this: (author, date).

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://memory.loc.gov/fsowhome.html

http://memory.loc.gov/fsowhome.html

《从大萧条到二战时期的美国:农业安全管理局-战时信息办公室照片集,1935-1945》是一部收录了大量来自农业安全管理局-战时信息办公室照片的合集。该合集是美国国会图书馆“美国记忆”网站的一部分,可按主题、创作者和地点进行检索。

America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photographs from the FSA-OWI, 1935–1945 is an extensive collection of photos from the Farm Security Administration—Office of War Information. The collection is part of the Library of Congress’s American Memory site and can be searched by subject, creator, and location.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/hult_sod.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/hult_sod.html

利用此网站帮助学生了解草皮房的生活方式与他们自己的生活方式有何不同。该网站是弗雷德·赫尔斯特兰德“历史图片集”的一部分,该系列记录了北部平原的定居历史。此资源是对草皮房的绝佳介绍,包含照片和文字说明。

Use this site to help students understand how life in a sod house differs from their own. Part of the Fred Hulstrand: History in Pictures collection that documents the settling of the northern Plains, this resource is a fine introduction to sod houses and includes photographs and descriptions.

http://www.kansashistory.us/dustbowl.html

http://www.kansashistory.us/dustbowl.html

《尘暴历史》收录了一系列精心挑选的第一手和第二手资料,包括照片、数据图表和歌曲。这些资料可用于了解背景知识或进行更深入的研究。

Dust Bowl History includes a well-chosen collection of primary and secondary sources, including photographs, data charts, and songs. These can be used for background knowledge or for further investigation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/dustbowl-introduction/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/dustbowl-introduction/

该网站由 PBS 系列节目《美国体验》创建,包含一段关于“尘暴”的短视频、一个有用的时间轴、课程计划以及文章和访谈(包括对唐纳德·沃斯特的访谈)。

Created by the PBS series American Experience, this site includes a short video about the Dust Bowl and a helpful timeline, lesson plan, and essays and interviews (including one with Donald Worster).

http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/index.htm

http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/index.htm

这是一份由历史学家威廉·克罗农及其学生编写的在线历史研究入门指南。指南中包含解读资料的方法,这些资料对于环境史(包括景观史)的研究尤为重要。您还可以访问克罗农的个人主页,获取更多关于环境史的资源。

A web-based primer on historical research compiled and produced by historian William Cronon and his students. Includes ways to read sources particularly important for doing environmental history, including landscapes. Also see Cronon’s home page for more resources regarding environmental history.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe20s/machines_01.htm

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe20s/machines_01.htm

对于不了解农业的人来说,这个网站很有帮助,它简要介绍了各种农用机械,以及它们在20世纪20年代内布拉斯加州的发展演变。解释通俗易懂,并配有照片和原始资料。

Helpful for the farming-ignorant, this site includes brief explanations of different farm machines and how they changed over time in 1920s Nebraska. Explanations are easy to follow and accompanied by photographs and primary accounts.

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/units/eight/landscape/08_landscape7.pdf

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/units/eight/landscape/08_landscape7.pdf

本教学单元探讨了20世纪上半叶的环境变化问题。该单元由“世界历史人人共享”(World History for Us All)网站制作,该网站是圣地亚哥州立大学和国家学校历史中心的一个项目。本单元提供了相关材料和背景知识,帮助学生从国际视角理解这些变化,并收录了有关人口增长、移民以及拖拉机和化石燃料日益普及的资料。

This teaching unit explores issues of environmental change in the first half of the 20th century. Produced by the World History for Us All website, a project of San Diego State University and the National Center for History in the Schools, it provides materials and background knowledge for bringing an international perspective to these changes, and includes sources that address population growth, migration, and the growing use of tractors and fossil fuel.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dust-bowl-cause.htm&url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/002-193.html

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dust-bowl-cause.htm&url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/002-193.html

这篇写于1986年的文章,从当代和国际视角探讨了荒漠化问题。文章内容包括荒漠化的定义、历史概述以及世界各地地表植被退化和消失的数据。

This article, written in 1986, offers a contemporary and international lens on desertification.30 It includes definitions, a historical overview, and data on the degradation and disappearance of ground cover for regions around the world.

http://newdeal.feri.org/

http://newdeal.feri.org/

由富兰克林和埃莉诺·罗斯福研究所赞助的“新政网络”提供了丰富的历史资料和其他教学资源,有助于深入讲解大萧条和新政。您可以在这里找到1936年大平原干旱地区委员会报告的更完整版本。

The New Deal Network, sponsored by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, offers a good collection of historical sources and other teaching resources to help flesh out lessons on the Great Depression and New Deal. Here you can find a more complete version of the 1936 Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee.

 

 


第七章

CHAPTER 7


罗莎·帕克斯与蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动

Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott

这是一个被无数次讲述的故事:一位普通的职业女性,一位裁缝,在炎热的夏日午后,结束了一天的辛勤工作后,疲惫不堪地等着公交车。她上了车,径直坐在了被禁止的“白人区”的前排座位上。公交车司机恶狠狠地吼道:“都给我挪挪,我要那些座位!” 1这位名叫罗莎·帕克斯的42岁非裔美国女性,没有挪动。

It’s a story that’s been retold countless times: An ordinary working woman, a seamstress, fatigued after a long day on her feet, waits for the bus on a sweltering summer afternoon. When she boards, she plops down in the front seat in the forbidden “White Section.” The bus driver menacingly barks: “Move y’all, I want those seats.”1 Rosa Parks, a 42-year-old African American woman, does not move.

在这一非凡的勇气之举中,罗莎·帕克斯直面种族隔离制度,正如作家珍妮特·史蒂文森所描述的那样,“摇摇欲坠的吉姆·克劳大厦开始瓦解”。²如同保罗·里维尔午夜从波士顿出发,或是帕特里克·亨利在弗吉尼亚议会挥舞拳头,罗莎·帕克斯的标志性举动已深深铭刻在美国人的记忆中。但帕克斯与这些人物之间存在着一个关键的区别:她并非出身于美国地主阶级,既非新英格兰的工匠,也非弗吉尼亚的种植园主。她是一位普通的黑人女性,父亲是木匠,母亲是教师。一位平凡的女性,却做出了非凡的举动。一个简单却又勇敢的举动。

In this singular act of courage, Rosa Parks stared down the institution of segregation, and in so doing, as writer Janet Stevenson described the precise moment, “the whole shaky edifice of Jim Crow began to totter.”2 Like Paul Revere setting out from Boston on his midnight ride, or Patrick Henry shaking his fist at the House of Burgesses, Rosa Parks’s iconic act is indelibly etched in American memory. But there’s a crucial difference between Parks and these other figures: She was not part of the nation’s landed gentry, neither a New England craftsman nor a Virginia planter. She was an ordinary Black woman, the daughter of a carpenter and a schoolteacher. An ordinary woman who committed an extraordinary act. A simple yet daring act.

如今的学生已经听过这个故事几十遍了,许多人都能想象出帕克斯夫人端坐在蒙哥马利公交车前排座位上的画面。2008年,来自全美50个州的2000名学生被要求说出“美国历史上最著名的女性,不包括总统夫人”。罗莎·帕克斯的名字位列榜首。 3在过去的30年里,关于她的传记数量几乎超过了学校课程中涉及的任何其他女性。 4

Today’s students have heard this story dozens of times, and many can visualize Mrs. Parks sitting with dignity in the front seat of a Montgomery bus. In 2008 2,000 students from all 50 states were asked to name “the most famous woman in American history, not including wives of presidents.” Rosa Parks’s name was at the top of that list.3 In the last 30 years, more biographies have been written about her than practically any woman in the school curriculum.4

在如今年轻人被指责缺乏基本历史知识的时代,罗莎·帕克斯的故事是教师们可以信赖的基石。大多数学生都能背诵这个故事。即使他们记不清主人公的名字,也肯定知道她是“公交车上的那位女士”。

In an age when young people are accused of not knowing basic historical facts, the story of Rosa Parks is a foundation teachers can depend on. Most students know the story by heart. Even if they can’t remember the name of the protagonist, they know her unmistakably as “the lady on the bus.”

只有一个问题:人们对罗莎·帕克斯的了解大多已被神话和传说扭曲,以至于很难了解真相。

There’s only one problem: Much of what they know about Rosa Parks has become so distorted by myth and legend that it’s tough getting to the real truth.

图像

罗莎·帕克斯的入狱照,1956年2月26日,可在以下网址获取:http://search.creativecommons.org/? q=rosa%20parks

Rosa Parks’s booking photo, Feb. 26, 1956, Available at http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=rosa%20parks

混乱从一开始就源于对那场悲剧发生当天的描述。让学生们闭上眼睛,想象帕克斯夫人等公交车的情景。许多人会描述阿拉巴马州炙热的阳光,炙烤着每个人,尤其是帕克斯夫人,她站了八个小时,双腿酸痛。问题在于,那天实际上是12月1日,蒙哥马利正经历着反常的寒流,时而下雨,气温骤降至华氏40度左右。至于她酸痛的双脚,罗莎·帕克斯反复强调,她那天和其他任何一天一样,并不感到疲惫。尽管她如此否认,教科书反复强调帕克斯夫人“脖子和背疼”或“感觉不舒服”。民权历史学家奥尔登· D·莫里斯指出,如果她感到疲惫,那也是来自一个剥夺了她基本权利和尊严的制度所带来的道德和精神上的疲惫。8正如帕克斯夫人所说,“我反抗在公交车上或其他任何地方受到不公平对待,这对我来说是家常便饭,并非只是那天的事。” 9

The confusion starts right at the beginning, with the setting of that fateful day. Ask students to close their eyes and imagine Mrs. Parks waiting for the bus. Many will describe a beating Alabama sun that frayed everyone’s nerves, especially Mrs. Parks’s, whose legs ached from 8 hours on her feet. The problem is that the day in question was actually the first of December, and Montgomery was experiencing an unseasonable cold spell, with intermittent rain and temperatures dipping into the mid-40s.5 As for those aching feet, Rosa Parks declared over and over that she was no more fatigued on this day than any other.6 Despite such denials, textbooks harp on the notion that Mrs. Parks’s “neck and back hurt” or that “she didn’t feel well.”7 If she experienced fatigue, notes civil rights historian Alden D. Morris, it was a moral and spiritual fatigue from a system that had denied her basic rights and dignity.8 As Mrs. Parks put it, “My resistance to being mistreated on the buses and anywhere else was just a regular thing with me and not just that day.”9

当你问学生们帕克斯夫人当时坐在公交车的哪个位置时,事情就变得更加复杂了。蒙哥马利市的公交车有36个座位,不包括预留给司机的第一个座位(参见工具7.1)。司机后面的10个座位被认为是车头,接下来的16个座位是车厢中间,最后的10个座位是车尾。那么,罗莎·帕克斯究竟坐在哪里呢?

The narrative becomes more tangled when you ask students where Mrs. Parks sat on the bus. Montgomery buses had 36 seats, not counting the first, reserved for the driver (see Tool 7.1). The 10 seats behind the driver were considered the front of the bus, the next 16 the middle, and the last 10 the back. So where exactly did Rosa Parks sit?

如果你的学生和我们调查过的数百名学生一样,你会得到所有三个答案:前面、中间和后面。确定这样一个简单的事实应该轻而易举,但事实并非如此。当学生咨询“权威人士”,如百科全书和教科书等值得信赖的资料时,他们反而会越陷越深,陷入令人费解的迷雾之中。

If your students are like the hundreds we’ve queried, you will get all three answers: front, middle, and back. Establishing such a simple fact should be a cinch, but when students consult “authorities,” trusted standbys like encyclopedias and textbooks, they are led deeper into a mystifying thicket.

让我们先来看《世界图书百科全书》中的以下这段文字:

Let’s start with the following passage from the World Book Encyclopedia:

帕克斯是一名裁缝,她因违反一项城市法律而被捕,该法律规定黑人必须坐在公共汽车的后排。她坐在了公交车的前排,并且拒绝服从司机让她让座的命令,以便一位白人乘客可以坐下。10

Parks, a seamstress, was arrested for violating a city law requiring blacks to sit in the rear of public buses. She had taken a seat in the front of the bus and disobeyed the driver’s order to move so a white person could sit down.10

《世界图书百科全书》将帕克斯安排在公交车的前排。而美国历史教科书《美国人》则将她的位置改写为“1955年12月1日,罗莎·帕克斯……在蒙哥马利一辆公交车的‘有色人种’区域的前排就座”,这意味着她当时在公交车的中间位置。 11另一本教科书则指出,帕克斯女士上车后“在白人专用区域找到了一个空位”,暗示她坐在了前排的“神圣十个”座位之一,这些座位即使车上没有白人乘客也必须留给白人乘客。 12而《美国人》的早期版本则将帕克斯的疲惫与她选择的座位联系起来:“经过一天的辛勤工作,她感到疲惫,便坐在了前排的白人专用区域。” 13

World Book Encyclopedia seats Parks in the front of the bus. The Americans, a major U.S. history textbook, moves her to a different place: “On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks … took a seat in the front row of the ‘colored’ section of a Montgomery bus,” placing her somewhere in the middle of the bus.11 A different textbook states that on boarding, Mrs. Parks “found an empty seat in the section reserved for whites,” implying she sat in one of the “sacred ten” seats at the front, which were reserved for White riders even when no White person was on board.12 And an earlier edition of The Americans links Parks’ alleged fatigue with her choice of seats: “Tired after a long day’s work, she sat down in the front section, which was reserved for whites.”13

真相是什么?既然二手资料无法达成一致,或许查阅一手资料——原始警方报告(资料 7.1)——就能解决这个问题。

What’s the truth? Since secondary sources cannot agree, perhaps consulting a primary source—the original police report (Source 7.1)—will put the issue to rest.

事与愿违。警方报告中描述的“白人专区”含义模糊,因为当时的城市法规赋予司机权力,可以根据公交车上种族构成的变化调整白人座​​位的数量。除了司机身后始终预留给白人的10个座位外,中间座位的分配会根据车上黑人和白人乘客的数量而随时调整。因此,这份报告并没有解答帕克斯夫人究竟坐在哪里。此外,一些敏锐的学生在审视这份警方报告时会质疑其可靠性:我们能相信阿拉巴马州蒙哥马利市两名白人警察对1955年违反吉姆·克劳法的犯罪行为的描述吗?

No such luck. The “white section” described in the police report is ambiguous, since the city code gave drivers the authority to adjust the number of white seats to correspond to the changing racial composition of the bus. Other than the 10 seats immediately behind the driver, always reserved for Whites no matter what, the designation of the middle seats could shift depending on the number of Black and White riders on the bus at any particular moment. Thus, the report does not solve the question of where exactly Mrs. Parks sat.14 Furthermore, when examining the police report, some astute students will question its reliability: Can we take the word of two White police officers in Montgomery, Alabama, in describing the crime of violating Jim Crow laws in 1955?

事实上,警方的记录是由克利夫兰大道公交车司机詹姆斯·F·布莱克主动举报的。布莱克是否有可能夸大其词?罗莎·帕克斯声称她与布莱克先生“素有嫌隙”。早在1943年,帕克斯女士就曾因拒绝在支付车费后从后门下车重新上车而被布莱克赶下车。蒙哥马利市法规允许司机这样做,但司机们执行得并不规范。此后12年间,帕克斯女士一直避免乘坐布莱克先生的公交车。1955年12月的那天,布莱克是否还记得她,就像她似乎还记得他一样?她固执的举动是否影响了布莱克对当天事件的看法?

In fact, the police account was initiated by James F. Blake, the driver of the Cleveland Avenue bus who reported the infraction. Would Blake have any motivation to exaggerate the offense? Rosa Parks claimed she “had history” with Mr. Blake. Years before, in 1943, he had kicked her off his bus when she refused to exit and reboard through the back entrance after having paid her fare, a practice sanctioned by the Montgomery City Code but applied irregularly by drivers.15 Mrs. Parks avoided riding his bus for 12 years following the incident. Did Blake remember her on that December day in 1955, just as she seemed to remember him? Did the memory of her stubbornness influence Blake’s perception of the day’s events?

布莱克的陈述由两名警官FB Day和DW Mixon记录下来。这两名警官是否想确保官方记录能够证明逮捕帕克斯的合理性?奇怪的是,他们报告中的手写部分(据推测是在逮捕时撰写的)仅仅提到帕克斯“拒绝服从公交车司机的指令”(资料来源7.2)。然而,打印版的报告则明确指出她“坐在公交车的白色区域”,警官们还补充说他们“也看到了她”。

Blake’s account was recorded by two policemen, F. B. Day and D. W. Mixon. Did these officers want to make sure the official record justified Parks’s arrest? Curiously, the handwritten portion of their report, presumably written at the time of the arrest, simply states that Parks was “refusing to obey orders of bus driver” (Source 7.2). The typed report, however, clarifies that she was “sitting in the white section of the bus,” while the officers add that they “also saw her.”

事实难以捉摸。当学生们将教科书和百科全书中的版本与警方报告中的单独陈述进行比较时,他们会发现,最直接的历史问题也会变成一个错综复杂的谜题,而这个谜题并非总能通过查阅原始资料来解决。

Facts elude. As students compare the versions in the textbook and encyclopedia entry with the separate statements in the police report, they’ll see how the most straightforward historical question turns into a jumbled puzzle, one not always solved by going back to primary sources.

帕克斯女士无视司机的命令,坚持不坐,这究竟是出于什么原因?是她一时冲动,还是民权领袖们精心策划的?毕竟,帕克斯女士是蒙哥马利全国有色人种协进会(NAACP)的秘书,并且曾在迈尔斯·霍顿的高地民俗学校度过一个夏天,学习公民不服从的理念和策略。 16从这个角度来看,她的拒绝究竟是一时冲动,还是精心策划的反抗行为?

What about Parks’s decision to remain seated despite the driver’s orders? Was that a spontaneous act, or had it been carefully orchestrated by civil rights leaders? After all, Mrs. Parks was secretary for Montgomery’s National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and had spent a summer at Myles Horton’s Highlander Folk School learning the philosophy and tactics of civil disobedience.16 Seen in that light, was her refusal a spur-of-the-moment decision or a calculated act of defiance?

有些学生会说,如果能问问帕克斯夫人,一切问题就都能解决了。信息来源总会有误差,但作为事件的核心人物——一位民族英雄,第一位在国会大厦圆形大厅接受公众瞻仰的女性——她的话肯定可靠,也能解答所有悬而未决的问题。

Some students will claim that it would settle everything if they could just ask Mrs. Parks. Sources of information always contain errors, but the person at the center of the event—a national heroine, the first woman to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda—would surely be reliable, and would put unresolved questions to rest.

这样的假设也令人失望。

Such an assumption disappoints as well.

罗莎·帕克斯一生中无数次讲述过自己的故事——在报纸和广播采访中,在电视节目中,以及在为小学生撰写的自传中。仔细审视这些记载,会发现更多矛盾和不一致之处,这对于了解人类记忆脆弱性的人,甚至是那些自己都难以回忆起遥远往事细节的人来说,都不足为奇。 17在1992年与吉姆·哈斯金斯合著的自传中,帕克斯夫人写道,她上车时“看到车厢中间有个空位,就坐了上去”。 18五年后,在一本为小学生撰写的自传中,她却说在她被捕那天,“坐在车厢后部的一个座位上”。 19 因此,即使向罗莎·帕克斯本人求证,也无法得到确切的答案。

During her life, Rosa Parks told her story myriad times—in newspaper and radio interviews, on TV, and in autobiographies written for schoolchildren. An examination of these accounts reveals even more contradictions and inconsistencies, not surprising to anyone familiar with the frailty of human memory or even their own difficulty recalling details about events in the distant past.17 In the autobiography written with Jim Haskins in 1992, Mrs. Parks states that upon boarding the bus, she “saw a vacant seat in the middle section of the bus and took it.”18 Five years later, in a book about her life written for elementary schoolchildren, she reports that on the day of her arrest she “was sitting in one of the seats in the back section.”19 Thus, even an appeal to Rosa Parks herself will not supply definitive answers.

对于刚刚开始进行历史思考的学生来说,“罗莎·帕克斯当时坐在哪里?”这个问题有着特殊的吸引力。这个问题很具体。学生无需接触晦涩难懂的语言和抽象的概念就能理解它。尽管关于这个问题有很多版本,而且教科书也充斥着各种错误信息,但答案却并无争议。帕克斯于1955年12月1日被捕,她的上诉最终得以进行。1956年3月28日,阿拉巴马州上诉法院作出裁决。控辩双方签署了一份双方认可的事实陈述,其中包含一张标明所有36个座位编号的巴士示意图。示意图显示,帕克斯夫人坐在12号座位上,紧邻永久保留给白人乘客的“神圣十座”(资料来源7.3)。

For students just getting started on historical thinking, the question of “where did Rosa Parks sit?” has a special appeal. The question is concrete. Students do not have to engage with arcane language and abstract issues to understand the issue. And despite its many versions and the clouds of misinformation perpetuated by textbooks, the answer is not in dispute. Parks’s arrest on December 1, 1955, was appealed and made its way to the Alabama Court of Appeals on March 28, 1956. A statement of agreed-upon facts, signed by both prosecution and defense, included a diagram of the bus with all 36 seats numbered. The diagram places Mrs. Parks in seat number 12, immediately behind the “sacred ten” seats permanently reserved for White riders (Source 7.3).

结案。

Case closed.

然而,正如历史上经常发生的那样,解决一个问题往往会引出另一个问题:罗莎·帕克斯拒绝让出12号座位是否真的违法了?正如她在1956年接受西德尼·罗杰斯电台采访时所说,帕克斯并不这么认为。20

Yet, as so often happens in history, solving one question opens up another: Did Rosa Parks actually break the law when she refused to give up seat 12? As she told Sidney Rogers in a 1956 radio interview, Parks did not think so.20

根据蒙哥马利市法典第6章第10-11条,只有当后排有空位时,司机才能要求黑人乘客让座(参见工具7.2)。21该法典规定:

According to the Montgomery City Code, Chapter 6, Section 10–11, a driver could order a Black passenger to relinquish a seat only if vacant seats were available in the rear section (see Tool 7.2).21 The Code states:

任何乘客不得拒绝在所属种族的座位上就座,即使值班工作人员要求其就座,只要该座位有空位。22

It shall be unlawful for any passenger to refuse to take a seat among those assigned to the race to which he belongs, at the request of any such employee in charge, if there is such a seat vacant.22

对黑人乘客来说,关键问题在于公交车上除了“神圣”的前十个座位之外,是否还有其他空位。换句话说,司机可以合法地命令黑人乘客从中间区域移到后排的空位上。但如果没有空位,黑人乘客则没有义务让座。

The crucial issue for Black riders was whether there were vacant seats on the bus, excluding the “sacred” first 10. In other words, the driver could legally order Blacks to move out of the middle section to an available seat at the back. But if there were no vacant seats, the Black riders were not obliged to relinquish their seats.

与市法典不同,阿拉巴马州法典中的吉姆·克劳法并没有此类限制性条款(参见工具 7.2)。它只是简单地规定:

Unlike the city code, the Jim Crow laws of Alabama’s State Code contained no such caveat (see Tool 7.2). It simply stated that:

负责任何车辆的汽车运输公司的乘务员或代理人有权且必须将每位乘客分配到与其所属种族相符的车辆区域。23

The conductor or agent of the motor transportation company in charge of any vehicle is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the division of the vehicle designated for the race to which the passenger belongs.23

与市级法规不同,州法律赋予公交车司机权力,可以要求黑人乘客离开座位,以便为白人乘客腾出空间,无论这意味着黑人乘客是否需要在剩余的旅程中站立。换句话说,州法律和地方法律之间存在差异。

Unlike the city code, the state law gave the bus driver the authority to remove Black riders from their seats to make room for Whites, whether that meant the passenger would have to stand for the remainder of the trip or not. In other words, there was a discrepancy between state and local laws.

这个问题因帕克斯夫人当天下午是否还有其他空位而变得更加复杂。如果没有空位,那么司机布莱克至少违反了蒙哥马利市的市政法规。提交给阿拉巴马州上诉法院的案情摘要中,双方约定的事实陈述指出,“关于黑人区是否有空位,证据存在争议。” 24帕克斯夫人表示,她认为自己拒绝让座并没有违法。 25 如果后排没有空位,那么她的说法是正确的——至少根据市政法规而言是如此。

The issue is further complicated by the question of whether additional seats were available to Mrs. Parks that afternoon. If there were none, then driver Blake was, at the very least, in violation of Montgomery’s City Code. The statement of stipulated facts in the brief before the Alabama Court of Appeals notes that “the evidence is in dispute as to whether or not there were vacant seats in the negro section.”24 Mrs. Parks stated she did not believe she was violating the law when she refused to give up her seat.25 And if there were no vacant seats in the back section, she would have been correct—at least according to city law.

那么,这究竟是一时冲动,还是精心策划的呢?在1956年的采访中,帕克斯夫人表示,她拒绝搬走是即兴的,没有事先安排。事实上,她认为自己没有违法似乎也印证了这一点。

What about the question of whether this was a spontaneous act, or one carefully planned? In the 1956 interview Mrs. Parks stated that her refusal to move was unplanned and unscripted. In fact, her belief that she was not breaking the law seems to corroborate this.

西德尼·罗杰斯:是什么让你在 1955 年 12 月上旬决定你已经受够了?

Sidney Rogers: What made you decide in the first part of the month of December 1955 that you had had enough?

罗莎·帕克斯:我想,我大概是被逼到忍无可忍的地步了吧。

Rosa Parks: The time had just come when I had been pushed as far as I could stand to be pushed, I suppose.

西德尼·罗杰斯:帕克斯夫人,这是您计划好的吗?

Sidney Rogers: Well, Mrs. Parks, had you planned this?

罗莎·帕克斯:不,我没有。

Rosa Parks: No I hadn’t.

西德尼·罗杰斯:事情就这么发生了。

Sidney Rogers: It just happened.

罗莎·帕克斯:是的,确实如此。26

Rosa Parks: Yes it did.26

如果罗莎·帕克斯计划被捕,她很可能会选择一种更明显违反她所反对的种族隔离法的行为。在后来的采访中,包括1992年接受美国国家公共广播电台采访时,她重申自己并未计划被捕,也未预料到之后会发生的一切。27

Had she planned to be arrested, it’s likely that Rosa Parks would have chosen an act that more clearly violated the segregation laws she opposed. In later interviews, including a 1992 interview on National Public Radio, she reiterated that she had not planned on being arrested and that she had no premonition of the events that would follow.27

蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的背景

The Montgomery Bus Boycott in Context

问题远不止于此。罗莎·帕克斯是在周四晚上被捕的。为什么在周四到周一短短的时间内,蒙哥马利市的42000名黑人市民就能组织起抵制公共交通的运动,每个人都能找到上下班的替代路线?这场看似瞬间爆发的抵制运动,又是如何获得如此广泛的支持和参与的?我们能否准确地说,罗莎·帕克斯的行动“引发”、“启动”或“推动”了这场持续一年多的抵制运动?

Questions do not end there. Rosa Parks was arrested on a Thursday evening. How was it that in the short period between Thursday and Monday, 42,000 Black citizens of Montgomery were able to organize a boycott of public transportation, each finding alternative routes to and from work? How did a boycott that seemed to catch fire at a moment’s notice command such widespread support and commitment? Can one accurately claim that Rosa Parks’s actions “sparked” or “initiated” or “set into motion” the boycott that lasted for over a year?

起初,谁也无法确定这场公交抵制运动能否成功。蒙哥马利市公交线路上的乘客绝大多数是非裔美国人。然而,在帕克斯被捕三天后,竟然没有一个黑人乘客登上公交车。成千上万的黑人设法照常上班,接孩子放学,购买晚餐所需的食材,然后回家。要理解这场规模如此庞大的社会运动的力量和成效——它依赖于任何个人的努力,却又超越了任何个人的努力——关键就在于理解“设法”这个词。

When it began, no one knew for sure whether the bus boycott would succeed. African Americans made up the majority of riders on the Montgomery City Lines. Yet, 3 days after Parks’s arrest, not a single Black person boarded a bus. Thousands somehow made it to their jobs and found ways to pick up their children from school, purchase groceries they needed for dinner, and make their way home. The key to understanding the power and effectiveness of a social movement of this magnitude, one that depends on but rises above the efforts of any one individual, lies in unlocking the word “somehow.”

蒙哥马利有着悠久的黑人维权历史,是社区动员的重要经验来源。1900年,在普莱西诉弗格森案使吉姆·克劳法的“隔离但平等”原则获得法律认可四年后,蒙哥马利市强制规定新建的有轨电车线路实行乘客分开就座,这是南方首个此类系统。28有轨电车车主不喜欢这个想法,认为这不切实际,而且会损害利润。

Montgomery had a long history of Black activism and was the source of important experience in community-wide mobilization. In 1900, four years after Plessy v. Ferguson gave legal sanction to Jim Crow’s “separate but equal” rule, the City of Montgomery mandated separate seating on the new electric trolley lines, the first system of its kind in the South.28 Trolley owners disliked the idea, believing that it would be impracticable and hurt profits.

为时已晚。蒙哥马利被卷入了一场席卷南方27座城市的浪潮,其中包括诺福克、纳什维尔、新奥尔良、莫比尔、奥古斯塔、亚特兰大和休斯顿,这些城市都要求公共交通工具实行种族隔离。黑人曾多次尝试抵制公共交通,但大多零星分散,成效不一。只有四场抵制行动可以称得上成功——彭萨科拉、杰克逊维尔、莫比尔和蒙哥马利。事实上,蒙哥马利1900年的有轨电车抵制行动非常成功,以至于在行动开始10天后,《亚特兰大宪法报》就报道说:“黑人的出行量明显下降,抵制行动仍在继续。” 29三个月后,该报报道称,有轨电车公司的利润下降了25%,黑人乘客以“令人惊讶的坚持”遵守了抵制行动。 30有轨电车抵制行动持续了两年。虽然它未能废除蒙哥马利的种族隔离法——直到20世纪中叶,种族隔离的现象仍然是南方生活的一部分——但它促成了一项妥协,并被写入蒙哥马利市法典:只有当后排有空位时,司机才能要求黑人乘客让座。这便是蒙哥马利市法典与阿拉巴马州法典之间存在差异的原因。

It was too late. Montgomery was caught in a wave that swept through 27 Southern cities, among them Norfolk, Nashville, New Orleans, Mobile, Augusta, Atlanta, and Houston, requiring separate seating on public transportation. There were attempts by Blacks to boycott public transport, most of them sporadic and uneven. Only four could be called successful—Pensacola, Jacksonville, Mobile, and Montgomery. In fact, Montgomery’s 1900 streetcar boycott was so successful that 10 days into it, the Atlanta Constitution reported that “there has been a decided falling off in the travel of the negroes and the boycott is on.”29 Three months later, the paper reported that trolley company profits had fallen 25%, and that Black riders had complied with the boycott with “surprising persistency.”30 The trolley boycott lasted for 2 years. While it did not defeat Montgomery’s Jim Crow laws—separate accommodations would become part of Southern life well into midcentury—it led to a compromise that was enacted into Montgomery’s City Code: A driver could order a Black rider to move only if there were vacant seats at the back. Hence, the source of the discrepancy between the Montgomery City Code and Alabama State Code.

到1955年,蒙哥马利已成为黑人社区政治和社会活动的中心。仅在这座城市,就有68个致力于推进非裔美国公民权利的组织。 31其中之一,妇女政治委员会(WPC),由阿拉巴马州立大学的玛丽·费尔·伯克斯教授创立,成员均为受过良好教育的黑人女性:阿拉巴马州立大学的教职员工、护士、公立学校教师、社会工作者和其他专业人士。1955年,WPC处理了30多起关于黑人乘客在城市公交车上遭受侮辱的投诉,其中包括15岁的克劳黛特·科尔文的案例。3月2日,在罗莎·帕克斯事件引起公众关注近8个月前,就读于布克·T·华盛顿高中的优等生克劳黛特拒绝给一位白人乘客让座,结果被强行赶下公交车。克劳黛特·科尔文效仿了其他黑人女性——吉内瓦·约翰逊、维奥拉·怀特、凯蒂·温菲尔德、埃斯皮·沃西——她们同样因为反抗蒙哥马利市警局的权力而遭受虐待,有时甚至遭到殴打。

By 1955 Montgomery was the site of political and social activism in the Black community. In this one city alone there were 68 organizations dedicated to advancing the rights of African American citizens.31 One of these, the Women’s Political Council (WPC), founded by Professor Mary Fair Burks of Alabama State University, was comprised of educated Black women: Alabama State faculty members, nurses, public schoolteachers, social workers, and other professionals. In 1955 the WPC responded to over 30 complaints about indignities faced by Black riders on city buses, including the case of 15-year-old Claudette Colvin. On March 2, nearly 8 months before Rosa Parks came to public attention, Claudette, an “A” student at Booker T. Washington High School, refused to give up her seat to a White rider and was forcibly removed from the bus. In doing so, Claudette Colvin followed in the wake of Black women—Geneva Johnson, Viola White, Katie Wingfield, Espie Worthy—similarly ill-treated, sometimes beaten, for standing up to the power of Montgomery City Lines.

正如罗莎·帕克斯并非第一个拒绝为白人乘客让座的人一样,抵制公交车的想法也并非在1955年12月1日才突然萌生。关于抵制的讨论已经持续多年。1954年5月,妇女和平委员会(WPC)主席、阿拉巴马州立大学英语教授乔安·吉布森·罗宾逊致信蒙哥马利市长,威胁称如果情况没有改善,她们将发起抵制。“即使现在,”罗宾逊写道,“人们仍在计划减少乘坐公交车的次数,甚至完全不乘坐公交车”(资料来源7.5)。罗宾逊写这封信时,距离罗莎·帕克斯被捕还有18个月多的时间。

Just as Rosa Parks was not the first to deny her seat to a White rider, neither was the idea for a boycott spontaneously hatched on December 1, 1955. Discussions of a boycott had been floating in the air for years. In May 1954, Jo Ann Gibson Robinson, WPC president and professor of English at Alabama State University, sent a letter to Montgomery’s mayor threatening a boycott if conditions did not improve. “Even now,” Robinson wrote, “plans are being made to ride less, or not at all, on our buses” (Source 7.5). Robinson wrote her letter more than 18 months before Rosa Parks was arrested.

12月1日,帕克斯夫人被捕的消息迅速传遍了蒙哥马利市的黑人社区。当晚,乔安·罗宾逊得知此事后,立即致电蒙哥马利市仅有的两位黑人律师之一——弗雷德·D·格雷。当她提出发起抵制活动的时机已到时,格雷问道:“你准备好了吗?”罗宾逊的行动表明了她已做好充分准备。从当晚午夜到次日凌晨,她一直在打印一份传单,宣布此次行动。借助阿拉巴马州立大学的油印机,她用了35令纸印制了17500份,裁成三份后,共印制了52500份:足够蒙哥马利市所有黑人居民领取,甚至还有剩余。第二天凌晨四点到七点,罗宾逊和她的同事们规划了分发路线。到了下午,蒙哥马利市已是传遍大街小巷,到处都在谈论这场抵制活动。传单被分发到蒙哥马利的黑人教堂,以便在周日早晨的礼拜仪式上宣布这项行动。罗宾逊和其他WPC成员利用周末时间规划周一的集合地点,组织电话联络,与黑人出租车司机协商补贴车费,并调集了200辆汽车和卡车作为替代交通工具。

News of Mrs. Parks’s arrest on December 1 spread quickly throughout Montgomery’s Black community. Hearing about it that evening, Jo Ann Robinson called Fred D. Gray, one of two Black lawyers in Montgomery. When she suggested that the time was ripe to initiate a boycott, Gray asked, “Are you ready?” Robinson’s actions communicated just how ready she was. By the middle of that night and into the early hours of the next morning, she typed up a leaflet announcing the action. With the help of Alabama State’s mimeograph machine, she used 35 reams of paper to run off 17,500 duplicates, which, when cut into thirds, produced 52,500 leaflets: enough and then some for every member of Montgomery’s Black community. Between four and seven o’clock the next morning, Robinson and her colleagues mapped distribution routes. By midafternoon, Montgomery was abuzz with news of the planned boycott. Leaflets were distributed to Montgomery’s Black churches so that the action could be announced during Sunday morning services. Robinson and other members of the WPC spent the weekend charting assembly points for Monday pickups, organizing phone banks, subsidizing rates with Black taxi drivers, and organizing 200 cars and trucks for use as alternative transport.

尽管遭到强烈反对,抵制活动仍持续了一年多。妇女和平委员会(WPC)和蒙哥马利改进协会(MIA,一个由黑人领袖组成的组织,旨在协调抵制行动)的成员不懈努力,维持着抵制活动的进行。1956年6月4日,美国地方法院就布劳德诉盖尔案作出裁决,该案再次挑战了吉姆·克劳法的合宪性。11月13日,最高法院维持了布劳德诉盖尔案的判决,实际上宣布地方和州政府的公共汽车种族隔离法违宪。 32随着1956年12月20日的这一裁决,持续381天的公共汽车抵制活动宣告结束。

Despite intense opposition, the boycott continued for over a year. Members of the WPC and the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), an organization of Black leaders formed to coordinate the effort, worked tirelessly to keep the boycott afloat. On June 4, 1956, the U.S. District Court ruled on Browder v. Gayle, another case challenging the constitutionality of Jim Crow. On November 13, the Supreme Court upheld Browder v. Gayle, effectively declaring that local and state bus segregation laws were unconstitutional.32 With that ruling on December 20, 1956, the 381-day bus boycott came to a halt.

蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动讲述的是社区组织和群众抗议在面对暴力镇压时如何坚持不懈的故事。从一开始,乔安·罗宾逊和其他妇女政治委员会(WPC)成员的努力就为抵制运动赢得了广泛的支持。1955年12月5日星期一晚上,领导人举行了一次群众大会,制定进一步的抗议计划。据当地一家报纸估计,超过7000名蒙哥马利黑人居民参加了这次大会。 33

The Montgomery Bus Boycott is a story of community organization and mass protest in the face of often violent opposition. From the very beginning, the efforts of Jo Ann Robinson and other members of the WPC helped to create widespread support for the boycott. On the evening of Monday, December 5, 1955, leaders held a mass meeting to make further plans for protest. One local newspaper estimated that over 7,000 Black citizens of Montgomery participated in the meeting.33

虽然罗莎·帕克斯确实在场,但这次会议并非仅仅围绕她的被捕展开。相反,罗莎·帕克斯成为了长期以来暗流涌动的不满和压迫的象征。关于她在抵制运动中的作用以及她出席会议的重要性,MIA的领导人之一拉尔夫·阿伯内西牧师指出,罗莎·帕克斯被呈现在众人面前。之所以选择她,是因为“我们希望她成为我们抗议运动的象征” 34资料来源 7.6)。她不仅是抗议的象征,而且是一个经过精心挑选的象征。德克斯特街教堂那位魅力四射的28岁牧师马丁·路德·金博士称帕克斯夫人是“蒙哥马利最优秀的公民之一——不是最优秀的黑人公民之一,而是蒙哥马利最优秀的公民之一。” 35

While Rosa Parks was certainly present, the meeting was not simply about her arrest. Rather, Rosa Parks became a symbol of the discontent and repression that had long been simmering beneath the surface. Regarding her role in the boycott and the importance of her presence at the meeting, Reverend Ralph Abernathy, one of the leaders of the MIA, noted that Rosa Parks was presented to the crowd because “we wanted her to become symbolic of our protest movement”34 (Source 7.6). Not only was she a symbol of the protest, she was a strategically selected symbol. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the charismatic 28-year-old pastor of Dexter Street Church, described Mrs. Parks as “one of the finest citizens of Montgomery—not one of the finest Negro citizens, but one of the finest citizens of Montgomery.”35

运动需要象征,而罗莎·帕克斯完美地成为了反对蒙哥马利公交车种族隔离抗议的象征。抗议的领导者们也承认这一点。但蒙哥马利公交车抵制运动的故事远比一位拒绝被赶下车的女性的故事复杂得多。它讲述的是一个社区在数十个组织的帮助下动员起来的故事;每个组织都有自己的目标和理念,但他们搁置分歧,团结一致地行动起来。历史告诉我们,无论是1955年的蒙哥马利、1980年的格但斯克造船厂,还是1989年的柏林,没有什么比形形色色的人们凝聚成一股强大的力量更胜一筹。

Movements need symbols, and Rosa Parks was ideally suited to become a symbol of protest against segregation on Montgomery buses. The leaders of the protest acknowledged this. But the Montgomery Bus Boycott is a more complex story than that of a lone woman who refused to be unseated. It is the story of a community that mobilized with the help of dozens of organizations; each had its own agenda and philosophy, but put aside their differences and acted as a unified force. As history shows us, whether it’s Montgomery in 1955, the Gdansk shipyards in 1980, or Berlin in 1989, nothing is more powerful than the variegated human collective emerging as a single force.

与此同时,“群众运动”本身是一种抽象概念,而抽象概念向来难以叙述。人类对具体事物的渴望驱使我们从人群中选取个体,有时甚至让这些个体掩盖了那些不那么生动但同样重要的故事。人们很容易想象一位端庄的女性,尽管受到不公正制度的威胁,仍然坚定地拒绝让座。然而,更难想象,也更难讲述的是,一群公民每周聚集在教堂地下室,一边喝着陈旧的咖啡,一边商讨策略,记录会议纪要,安排下一次会议。

At the same time, a “mass movement” is an abstraction, and abstractions are notoriously difficult to narrate. The human desire for concreteness makes us pull individuals from the crowd, and sometimes allows these figures to overshadow less vivid, but equally important stories. The human mind can easily visualize a dignified woman steadfastly refusing to give up her seat despite threats by the agents of an unjust system. What is less easy to visualize, and certainly less compelling to narrate, is groups of citizens coming together week after week in church basements, plotting strategy over stale coffee, filing minutes, and scheduling further meetings.

我们常常忘记,英雄的加冕有时带有随意性。毫无疑问,罗莎·帕克斯是一位拥有非凡勇气和道德力量的女性。但乔安·罗宾逊也同样如此,她敏锐的政治手腕和强大的社区组织能力是抵制运动取得成功的关键。你的学生或许知道帕克斯夫人的故事,但他们中恐怕无人知晓乔安·罗宾逊。然而,乔安·罗宾逊的英雄地位丝毫不逊于罗莎·帕克斯。我们歌颂帕克斯而忽视罗宾逊,这让我们意识到历史记忆的善变,也引发了我们对历史意义的思考。

We forget that the crowning of heroes is sometimes arbitrary. No doubt Rosa Parks was a woman of incredible courage and moral strength. But the same could be said for Jo Ann Robinson, whose keen political skill and powers of community organization were a linchpin of the boycott’s success. Your students will know the story of Mrs. Parks, but it is unlikely that any one of them ever heard of Jo Ann Robinson. Yet Jo Ann Robinson was no less a hero than Rosa Parks. The fact that we sanctify Parks and ignore Robinson teaches us about the fickle nature of historical memory, and raises questions about what we consider significant from the past.

学生面临的挑战

Challenges for Students

如果我们试图拓展“吉姆·克劳制度摇摇欲坠的整个体系因罗莎·帕克斯被捕而开始瓦解”或“这一举动悄然引发了一场社会革命”的观点,会发生什么呢? 36在我们与高中课堂的合作中,我们发现罗莎·帕克斯的故事根深蒂固,即使面对拓展这一故事的证据,许多学生仍然固守传统的说法。请看以下摘自11年级学生瑞恩对“为什么抵制蒙哥马利公交车的运动会成功?”这一问题的回答。在撰写文章之前,这位学生和他的同学们查阅了各种一手资料,包括乔安·罗宾逊的信件和拉尔夫·阿伯内西的声明。然而,这位学生并没有根据新信息改变自己的理解,而是生硬地将新信息生硬地套入自己原有的观念中(见图7.1)。

What happens when we try to expand the view that the “whole shaky edifice of Jim Crow began to totter” with Rosa Parks’s arrest, or that this one act “quietly set off a social revolution”?36 In our work with high school classes, we have found that the story of Rosa Parks is so deeply ingrained that even after being confronted with evidence that expands it, many students hold tight to the traditional story. Consider the following excerpt by Ryan, an 11th-grader responding to the prompt: Why did the boycott of Montgomery’s buses succeed? Before writing his essay, this student and his classmates examined a variety of primary sources, including Jo Ann Robinson’s letter and Ralph Abernathy’s statement. Rather than changing his understanding in light of new information, this student squeezes the new information to fit his preexisting ideas (see Figure 7.1).

瑞安复述了人们对罗莎·帕克斯的熟悉的浪漫化描述,称她“古雅”,而这个形容词在他查阅的文件中根本找不到。他将帕克斯被捕与抵制公交车运动之间的关系视为因果关系。当他引用文件中的信息时,非但没有推翻他已知的叙述,反而(错误地)将其添加到其中。瑞安引用乔安·罗宾逊的信件违反了时间顺序的基本原则;他用这封信来支持黑人公民在帕克斯被捕“团结起来”的说法,尽管这封信实际上是在事件发生前18个月写的。

Ryan reproduces the familiar romanticized account of Rosa Parks, describing her as “quaint,” an adjective that appears nowhere in the documents he reviewed. He casts the relationship between Parks’s arrest and the bus boycott as one of cause and effect. When he draws on information from the documents, rather than disrupting the story he knows, it is (incorrectly) added to it. Ryan’s quotation from Jo Ann Robinson’s letter violates the basic rule of chronology; he uses it to support the claim that Black citizens “bonded” with one another after Parks’s arrest, even though the letter was actually written 18 months before the incident took place.

同班同学肖娜的反应则截然不同。对她而言,接触到文献证据后,她对蒙哥马利事件的整个看法都改变了(见图7.2)。

Shawna, a student in the same class, responded differently. For her, the encounter with documentary evidence changed the entire picture of what happened in Montgomery (see Figure 7.2).

肖娜将罗莎·帕克斯被捕事件置于蒙哥马利黑人社区为终结种族隔离制度(吉姆·克劳法)的种种侮辱性做法而持续斗争的背景下进行解读。帕克斯被捕事件固然重要(肖娜称之为“巅峰事件”),但它也被置于一系列事件之中,是帕克斯被捕前就已开始、并在其后持续进行的长期斗争的一部分。

Shawna places Rosa Parks’s arrest in the context of an ongoing effort by Montgomery’s Black community to put an end to the demeaning practices of Jim Crow. While Parks’s arrest is given its due (Shawna describes it as “the crowning incident”), it is placed in a chain of events, part of a longer struggle that began before Parks’s arrest and continued well after.

为什么这两位学生,都是优秀的读者和写作者,同班同学,接触过相同的材料,却会得出如此截然不同的结论?瑞恩正面回应了论文题目,甚至将原始资料融入到他的最终论文中。然而,瑞恩并没有利用这些资料来修正自己的理解,而是落入了许多人都会遇到的陷阱:他没有仔细阅读文献,而是从中搜集引文来支撑自己早已形成的假设。另一方面,肖娜则通过接触原始资料,修正了自己对巴士抵制运动以及帕克斯在其中所扮演角色的固有观念。通过关注乔安·罗宾逊文件的日期,并将事件按时间顺序排列,肖娜意识到帕克斯的行动并非偶然,而是有着重要的先例,1955年12月1日星期一开始的这场运动,其酝酿已久,甚至可能长达数年。

How is it that these two students, both good readers and writers, members of the same class and exposed to the same materials, could produce such divergent accounts? Ryan addressed the essay question head-on, and even integrated source material into his final essay. But instead of using these sources to refashion his understanding, Ryan fell into a trap that snares many: Rather than reading the documents carefully, Ryan raided them in search of quotations to prop up an already formed hypothesis. Shawna, on the other hand, allowed an encounter with source material to rehabilitate a preconceived notion of the bus boycott and Parks’s role in it. By attending to the date of the Jo Ann Robinson document and placing events in temporal sequence, Shawna realized that Parks’s actions had important predecessors, and that what began on Monday, December 1, 1955, had been percolating for months, if not years.

这两篇文章并不罕见。任何有教学经验的人都见过这样的场景:有些学生恍然大悟,领悟到新的知识;而另一些学生则固执己见,即使面对相反的证据也毫不动摇。与此同时,这两篇文章也提醒我们一个重要的原则:虽然信息来源可以……通过恢复原作者的声音来活跃教学气氛,但这并不能提供成功的灵丹妙药。即使面对直接挑战学生固有观念的第一手证据,也可能仍有一些学生无动于衷。正如我们有时会根据新数据重塑自己的信念一样,我们也会通过扭曲数据来使其符合预设的模式。有时,我们甚至会完全忽略新的证据。无论哪种情况,结果都是一样的:我们紧紧抓住先前的信念不放。

These two essays are in no way unusual. Anyone with classroom experience has seen the light bulb of new understanding go off for some students, while others hold tenaciously to prior beliefs, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. At the same time, these essays remind us of an important principle: While sources can enliven instruction by restoring the voices of original actors, they provide no magic formula for success. An encounter with primary evidence that directly challenges students’ beliefs may still leave some unaffected. Just as we sometimes refashion our beliefs in the face of new data, we also alter new data by twisting it to fit preconceived patterns. Sometimes we simply ignore new evidence altogether. In either case, the result is the same: We grasp tightly to our prior beliefs.

 

 

图 7.1. 瑞恩的文章

Figure 7.1. Ryan’s Essay


图像

 

 

1955年冬日的一天,一位举止优雅的非裔美国妇女在蒙哥马利的一辆公交车上落座。当她拒绝将座位让给一位白人乘客时,罗莎·帕克斯无意间开启了历史上规模最大、持续时间最长的公众抵制运动之一。帕克斯女士因拒绝让座而被捕入狱。这激起了非裔美国人的强烈愤慨。受压迫的人们最终采取的解决办法是:抵制蒙哥马利市的所有公交车,直到相关法律修改,使所有种族的人都能享有平等的权利。

A quaint African-American woman seated herself on a Montgomery public bus one winter day in 1955. When she refused to abdicate her seat to a white citizen, Rosa Parks unknowingly initiated one of history’s largest and longest public boycotts. Ms. Parks was incarcerated for not subjecting her seat. This created community-wide rage through the African-Americans. The solution the oppressed people developed was public boycott of all Montgomery city buses until the abiding laws were changed to suit people of either race.

这次罢工需要周密的策略,以及整个非裔美国人群体的协调配合。协调抵制活动本身就是一项艰巨的任务。人们制定了不同的出行方案,以便上班、上学或进行其他活动。全体民众团结互助,共同寻找克服眼前困境的方法。“越来越多的人与邻居和朋友拼车出行,以避免被公交车司机侮辱和羞辱。”(罗宾逊致市长的信)37

This strike took much strategy, and coordination throughout the African-American populace. Coordinating the boycott presented a task within itself. Different methods were mapped out for people to use to attend work, school or other outings. The whole of the population bonded with their neighbors to find a way to rise above the issue at hand. “More and more of our people are arranging with neighbors and friends to ride to keep from being insulted and humiliated by bus drivers.” (Letter from Robinson to Mayor).37

 

 

图 7.2. 肖娜的文章

Figure 7.2. Shawna’s Essay


图像

 

 

人们常常听说,罗莎·帕克斯拒绝给白人让座的事件引发了蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动。然而,事实并非如此。虽然罗莎·帕克斯被捕是民权运动史上最引人注目的事件,也可能是抵制运动的导火索,但早在几个月前,人们就开始讨论巴士抵制运动的计划。这是一场组织严密、目标明确、经过精心策划的运动。

It is very common to hear that the incident, where Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man, is what started the Montgomery Bus Boycott. However, this is not the case. Though Rosa Parks’ arrest was the crowning incident in the history of civil rights and may have been what got the boycott started, the plans for a bus boycott had been talked about months earlier. This event was a highly organized and determined effort and planned through very carefully.

在抵制活动开始前一年,蒙哥马利市议会就提出了修改公交车法规的提案。这些提案得到了讨论,但只有部分法规略作修改。“公交车开始在黑人居住的更多街角停靠。然而,座位安排和上下车方式仍然一成不变。”(妇女政治委员会主席乔安·罗宾逊的信)

A year before the boycott, discussions of changing the bus laws were proposed to the Montgomery City Council. These propositions were addressed, but only some of the laws were slightly changed. “Busses have begun stopping on more corners where negroes live than previously. However, the same practices in seating and boarding continue.” (letter from Jo Ann Robinson, President of the Women’s Political Council).

在集体记忆中,蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的故事已与罗莎·帕克斯被捕事件紧密相连。邮票、公交车上的海报、儿童传记以及小学为纪念黑人历史月而举办的集会都强化了这种观念。阻碍新知识学习的最大挑战之一,就是人们普遍认为我们没什么可学的。只有当我们关注细节,当我们停下来仔细梳理信息的时间顺序,当我们允许新的数据来启发和挑战我们原有的认知时,历史才能真正引导我们走向开放的心态。蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的故事提供了一个绝佳的案例,帮助学生们意识到,他们对这一事件的“了解”在很多方面都远不及他们最初的想象。

The story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott has become synonymous in collective memory with Rosa Parks’s arrest. This notion is reinforced by postage stamps, posters on buses, children’s biographies, and elementary school assemblies commemorating Black History Month. One of the biggest challenges to new learning is the belief that we have little to learn. History leads to open-mindedness only when we pay attention to detail, when we pause long enough to place information in temporal sequence, when we allow new data to inform and challenge our understanding. The story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott provides a test case for helping students realize that what they “know” about this event is, in many respects, less than what they originally thought.

为什么要教授罗莎·帕克斯和蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动?

Why Teach About Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott?

一个耳熟能详的故事,却有着意想不到的转折。与课程中的新主题不同,罗莎·帕克斯的故事学生们从小学起就耳熟能详。有些学生会绘声绘色地讲述这个故事,坚信自己所知道的都是事实;而另一些学生则会挠头疑惑,不明白自己为什么还要一遍又一遍地学习这个故事。正是这种熟悉感,为我们提供了一个切入点,让我们得以探讨如何辨别一段充满神话的历史真相。在关于蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的众多问题中,“罗莎·帕克斯当时坐在哪里?”是最具体的问题。这是一个直截了当的事实性问题,没有任何含义上的细微差别、多重因果关系和推断等容易让学生感到困惑的地方。

A Familiar Story with Unfamiliar Twists. Unlike new topics in the curriculum, the story of Rosa Parks is one that students have heard since elementary school. Some will bring vivid narratives to class, certain that everything they know is true, while others will scratch their heads, wondering why they are studying the story for the umpteenth time. It is this very familiarity that provides entry into the question of how we determine truth about a myth-strewn past. Of the many questions we can ask about the Montgomery Bus Boycott, “Where did Rosa Parks sit?” is the most concrete. It is a straightforward factual question without any of the nuances of meaning, multiple causality, and inference that can trip students up.

查明事件的基本事实不仅对历史理解至关重要,而且对整个法律体系也至关重要:每天,成千上万人的命运都取决于案件基本事实的确定。事实调查工作十分复杂,尤其是在百科全书和教科书等权威资料相互矛盾的情况下。本应揭示罗莎·帕克斯坐在哪里的警方报告,却带来了更多难题;结果发现并非只有一份报告,而是两份,而戴伊警官和米克森警官是否在记录中歪曲事实仍然是个问题。帕克斯夫人也未能解决这个问题,因为她在不同时期对同一件事的记忆并不相同。

Determining the basic facts of an event is central not only to historical understanding but our entire legal system: Every day thousands of fates rest on determining the basic facts of a case. Factual detective work is complicated, especially when trusted sources such as encyclopedias and textbooks contradict one another. The police report, which should have shed light on where Rosa Parks sat, offered further challenges; it turns out there was not one report, but two, and the question remains whether Officers Day and Mixon skewed their records in a particular direction. Nor does Mrs. Parks resolve the problem, as she remembered different things at different times in her life.

这个看似简单的问题——“罗莎·帕克斯当时坐在哪里?”——让学生们有机会认真思考不同的来源和不同类型的证据:自传叙述;教科书叙述;原始文件;以及最终能够解答这个问题的来源,即双方在联合事实陈述中签署的法庭文件。

This deceptively simple question—“Where did Rosa Parks sit?”—offers students an opportunity to think hard about different sources and different kinds of evidence: autobiographical accounts; textbook narratives; primary documents; and ultimately, the source that puts the question to rest, a court document signed by both parties in a joint statement of facts.

历史究竟铭记谁,遗忘谁?历史选择铭记谁,遗忘谁,这个问题无法仅凭一份文献就能解答。相反,它迫使我们审视我们如何从历史人物中挑选出合适的角色,将一些人奉为英雄,而将另一些人埋没于历史的尘埃之中。拒绝让座是否比参与政治组织、选择合适的时机撰写传单并分发给社区的四万两千名成员更具意义?为什么一种行为被视为英雄之举,值得印在邮票上纪念,而另一种却不被认可?罗莎·帕克斯和乔安·吉布森·罗宾逊是同时代的人,她们都致力于社会变革。通过对她们的比较研究,学生有机会探究历史理解的核心问题之一:是什么使一个人、一件事或一个事件值得被铭记?

Whom Does History Remember and Forget? The question of who history chooses to remember and forget cannot be answered by a single document. Instead, it forces us to examine how we pluck figures from the past’s cast of characters, elevating some as heroes while sentencing others to obscurity. Is refusing to give up a seat inherently more significant than engaging in political organizing and choosing the right moment to spring into action by composing a leaflet and distributing it to 42,000 members of a community? Why is one action considered heroic and worthy of commemoration on postage stamps and the other not? Rosa Parks and Jo Ann Gibson Robinson were contemporaries, and both worked for social change. By considering them in tandem, students have the chance to examine one of the core issues of historical understanding: What makes a person, an act, or an event worthy of being remembered?

社会运动教学。学生们更容易将蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的成功归功于少数人的英勇行为,而不是理解整个社区如何搁置分歧、团结一致。巴士抵制运动的成功源于普通民众无数的日常行动。他们提前45分钟出门;他们组织电话联络网,确保每个人都知道在哪里可以搭乘临时出租车;他们筹集资金,以备不时之需;每当替代交通系统瘫痪时,他们也忍受着等待的不便。这些看似微小的行动日复一日、月复一月地持续了381天,直到蒙哥马利市公交系统几乎瘫痪。理解大规模集体行动是理解吉姆·克劳法终结的关键。通过理解社会行动的动态,学生们将能够探讨美国历史上的其他群众运动——废奴运动、妇女选举权运动、工会运动以及20世纪60年代的反战运动。

Teaching About Social Movements. It is much easier for students to pin the success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott on the heroic actions of a few individuals than to understand how entire communities could put aside differences and come together in unison. The bus boycott succeeded because ordinary citizens committed innumerable ordinary acts. They left the house 45 minutes earlier. They organized phone trees to make sure that everyone knew where to catch one of the ad hoc taxis. They pooled their financial resources to provide transportation in case of emergencies. They suffered the inconvenience of waiting for rides whenever the alternative transport system broke down. These small acts were committed day after day, month after month, for 381 days, until the back of the Montgomery City Lines was nearly broken. Understanding mass collective action unlocks the door to understanding Jim Crow’s demise. By understanding the dynamics of social action, students will be able to address other mass movements in American history—abolition, women’s suffrage, unionization, and the antiwar protests of the 1960s.

你会如何使用这些材料?

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一(1小时课程):罗莎·帕克斯坐在哪里?本情景围绕一个具体问题展开,让学生扮演历史侦探的角色。

Scenario 1 (1 Hour Lesson). Where did Rosa Parks sit? This scenario revolves around a concrete question and puts students in the role of historical detective.


CCSS

9–10 #1

11–12 #8

CCSS

9–10 #1

11–12 #8


首先,请学生复述罗莎·帕克斯的故事,然后让他们在空白的公交车示意图(工具 7.1,第一部分)上标出帕克斯女士在 36 个座位中的哪个位置。你会得到各种各样的答案。询问学生他们是如何判断哪个答案是正确的。然后,将学生分组,让他们参考资料7.17.2 ,以及工具 7.1第二部分中的图表。让他们在分析资料的同时填写图表,然后再回到空白的公交车示意图。让他们小组讨论,决定帕克斯女士在公交车示意图上的哪个位置。允许每个小组进行口头陈述,解释他们的选择。

Begin by asking students to retell the story of Rosa Parks, and then ask them to mark where among the 36 seats on the blank bus diagram (Tool 7.1, Part One) Mrs. Parks sat. You will get a variety of answers. Ask students how they determined which of these answers was true. Then, arrange students in groups and have them consider Source 7.1 and Source 7.2 along with the graphic organizer in Tool 7.1, Part Two. Have them fill out the graphic organizer as they analyze documents and then return to the blank bus diagram. Ask them to decide as a group where to place Mrs. Parks on the bus diagram. Allow each group to make an oral argument justifying their choice.

图像

除了警方报告外,学生还可以参考教科书、百科全书以及本章摘录的自传。注意观察学生如何权衡这些不同的信息来源,并判断其可信度。教科书的信息来源是什么?我们又该如何得知?(向学生展示带有脚注的历史专著或文章,让他们与教科书进行比较;指出专业的历史著作与教科书不同,会在脚注中列出参考文献。)

In addition to the police reports, students may consult their textbook, encyclopedia, and autobiography excerpts from this chapter. Be attentive to how students weigh these different resources and judge their trustworthiness. Where do textbooks get their information, and how would we know? (Show students a historical monograph or article with footnotes, and have them compare it to the textbook; point out that professional historical writing, unlike textbook writing, leaves tracks by listing its sources in footnotes.)

思考一下为什么会出现这些差异。根据这些资料,我们能否确切地知道帕克斯夫人坐在哪里?许多学生会说不能,这个答案引出了一个问题:我们如何才能确切地知道任何事情?如果我们连一个人坐在哪里的基本事实都无法确定(她因此被捕,案件甚至闹到了阿拉巴马州上诉法院),我们又如何能确定任何问题的真相呢?

Consider why such differences might exist. Given these sources, is there a way to know for sure where Mrs. Parks sat? Many students will say no, an answer that raises the question of how we can know anything for sure. If we can’t even establish basic facts about where a person has sat (an act for which she was arrested, which made its way to the Alabama Court of Appeals), how can we establish the facts of any issue?

此时,你应该告知学生你隐瞒了一份关键文件:控辩双方签字的法庭案件图表(资料7.3)。虽然历史上的许多问题无法解答,但本案的基本事实并无争议。这就引出了一个显而易见的问题:为什么这么多二手资料会出错?

At this point you should let students know that you have withheld one crucial document: the diagram from the court case (Source 7.3) signed by the prosecution and the defense. While many questions in history are unanswerable, in this case the basic facts are not in dispute. This raises the obvious question of why so many secondary sources get it wrong.


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 确定信息来源的可靠性
  • Determining reliability of sources
  • 核实/交叉核对来源
  • Corroborating/cross-checking sources

情景二(1小时课程):罗莎·帕克斯拒绝让座是否违法?本课可与前一课配合使用,也可独立授课。本课的核心在于教授学生精读技巧,并仔细研读两份文本:《蒙哥马利市法典》和《阿拉巴马州法典》。

Scenario 2 (1 Hour Lesson). Did Rosa Parks break the law when she refused to give up her seat? This lesson can accompany the previous one or stand on its own. It pivots on teaching students to read closely, and carefully examines two texts: the Montgomery City Code and the Alabama State Code.


CCSS #2,#4

CCSS #2, #4


这里的问题错综复杂,许多学生会因法律条文的晦涩难懂而感到困惑。此外,他们也不熟悉吉姆·克劳法的特殊之处——司机身后那十个“神圣座位”的概念,即使车厢里挤满了人,周围一个白人都没有,黑人也绝不能坐。一旦你帮助学生了解了吉姆·克劳法时期乘坐公交车的大致情况,就应该放慢阅读速度,引导他们理解这两篇晦涩难懂的文章(工具7.2)。

The issues here are complex, and many students will be challenged by the technicalities of the legal code. Moreover, they will be unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Jim Crow—the notion of the 10 “sacred seats” behind the driver that could never be occupied by Blacks even when aisles were packed and not a single White was in sight. Once you’ve established the contours of riding the bus during the Jim Crow era, slow down the reading process and help students wend their way through these two difficult texts (Tool 7.2).


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 分析法律条文
  • Analyzing legal codes
  • 细读
  • Close reading

情景三(1.5-3小时课程)。是什么促成了蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的成功?本情景探讨了蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的整体意义,并引导学生超越“一位女性的行动如何推翻了吉姆·克劳法的整个体系”这一层面进行深入思考。

Scenario 3 (1.5–3 Hour Lesson). What led to the success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? This scenario gets at the larger question of the Montgomery Bus Boycott as a whole and challenges students to go beyond how a single woman’s action could topple the whole edifice of Jim Crow.


CCSS

6-8年级 #10

9-10年级 #1

11-12年级 #9

CCSS

6–8 #10

9–10 #1

11–12 #9


您可以先了解学生对这个故事的背景知识。让他们阅读教育家赫伯特·科尔(Herbert Kohl)对儿童读物中常见故事讲述方式的描述,并询问是否有人会对此进行修改(资料来源 7.4)。分组,让学生制作一个时间轴,内容包括抵制活动、乔安·罗宾逊(Jo Ann Robinson)写给盖尔市长(Mayor Gayle)的信以及拉尔夫·阿伯内西(Ralph Abernathy)的声明(工具 7.3资料来源 7.57.6)。在时间轴上,让他们标出与抵制活动相关的事件。然后,让他们分析蒙哥马利巴士抵制活动成功的原因;并让他们选择能够突出每位作者立场的引文。让学生阅读两位高中生的文章,并询问他们哪篇文章最能体现他们刚刚阅读的证据。无论哪种情况,学生都可以通过讨论、文章或段落的形式分享他们的想法。

You can begin with students’ background knowledge about the story. Expose them to educator Herbert Kohl’s version of the stereotypical way the story is told in children’s books and ask if anyone would emend it (Source 7.4). In groups, have students create a timeline that includes the boycott, Jo Ann Robinson’s letter to Mayor Gayle, and Ralph Abernathy’s statement (Tool 7.3, Sources 7.5 and 7.6). On a timeline, have them plot events related to the boycott. Then ask them to identify what led to the success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott; have them select quotations that highlight each author’s positions. Have students do the same with the two high school students’ essays; ask your students which essay best reflects the evidence they have just reviewed. In either case, students could share their ideas in discussion or in an essay or paragraph.

或者,让学生就“我们应该如何纪念罗莎·帕克斯和乔安·罗宾逊?”这个问题写一篇作文。学生应该解释人们通常是如何记住这两位人物的,然后说明他们认为应该如何记住帕克斯和罗宾逊。

Alternately, ask students to write an essay in response to the question “How should we remember Rosa Parks and Jo Ann Robinson?” Students should explain how each figure is typically remembered and then how they think Parks and Robinson should be remembered.


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 质疑叙事性叙述
  • Questioning narrative accounts
  • 区分神话与历史
  • Distinguishing between myth and history
  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源7.1 :警方报告(打字稿

SOURCE 7.1: POLICE REPORT (TYPED)


图像


来源:警官戴伊和米克森于 1955 年 12 月 1 日逮捕罗莎·帕克斯时提交的打字版警方报告(原件可在http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks/#document找到)。

Source: Typed police report submitted by Officers Day and Mixon, who arrested Rosa Parks, on December 1, 1955 (original can be found at http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks/#document).

资料来源7.2:警方报告(手写

SOURCE 7.2: POLICE REPORT (HANDWRITTEN)


图像


来源:警官戴伊和米克森于 1955 年 12 月 1 日逮捕罗莎·帕克斯时提交的手写警察报告(http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks/#documents)。

Source: Handwritten police report submitted by Officers Day and Mixon, who arrested Rosa Parks on December 1, 1955 (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks/#documents).

 

 

来源7.3 签名总线图

SOURCE 7.3: SIGNED BUS DIAGRAM


图像


来源:罗莎·帕克斯案中控辩双方同意的公交车示意图,提交于 1956 年 2 月 22 日(http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks/#documents)。

Source: Bus diagram agreed to by the prosecution and defense in the case of Rosa Parks, submitted February 22, 1956 (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks/#documents).

 

 

资料来源7.4 教科书版本

SOURCE 7.4: TEXTBOOK VERSION


注:作家兼教育家赫伯特·科尔调查了 20 多本历史教科书如何讲述 1955 年 12 月 1 日罗莎·帕克斯拒绝让座的故事。以下是他介绍这些教科书所讲述的标准版本。

Note: Author and educator Herbert Kohl surveyed how more than 20 history textbooks told the story of Rosa Parks’s refusal to give up her seat on December 1, 1955. Here he presents the standard story as told by these textbooks.

“罗莎很累:蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的故事”

“Rosa was tired: The story of the Montgomery bus boycott”

罗莎·帕克斯是一位贫穷的裁缝。20世纪50年代,她住在阿拉巴马州的蒙哥马利。当时,美国部分地区仍然存在种族隔离。这意味着非裔美国人和欧裔美国人不能使用相同的公共设施,例如餐馆或游泳池。这也意味着,每当城市公交车拥挤时,非裔美国人必须把前面的座位让给欧裔美国人,自己则要坐到车厢后部。

Rosa Parks was a poor seamstress. She lived in Montgomery, Alabama, during the 1950s. [In] those days there was still segregation in parts of the United States. That meant that African Americans and European Americans were not allowed to use the same public facilities such as restaurants or swimming pools. It also meant that whenever it was crowded on the city buses African Americans had to give up seats in front to European Americans and move to the back of the bus.

一天下班回家,罗莎很累,便坐在公交车前排。车厢里越来越拥挤,有人请她把座位让给一位欧洲裔美国男士,她拒绝了。司机告诉她必须坐到车厢后部,她仍然不肯让座。那天天气很热,她又累又生气,变得非常固执。

One day on her way home from work Rosa was tired and sat down in the front of the bus. As the bus got crowded she was asked to give up her seat to a European American man, and she refused. The bus driver told her she had to go to the back of the bus, and she still refused to move. It was a hot day, and she was tired and angry, and became very stubborn.

司机叫来了警察,警察逮捕了罗莎。

The driver called a policeman, who arrested Rosa.

蒙哥马利的其他非裔美国人听到这个消息后也感到愤怒。于是,他们决定拒绝乘坐公交车,直到所有人都能一起乘车为止。他们发起了抵制公交车的行动。

When other African Americans in Montgomery heard this they became angry too. So they decided to refuse to ride the buses until everyone was allowed to ride together. They boycotted the buses.

由马丁·路德·金领导的抵制运动取得了成功。现在,非裔美国人和欧裔美国人可以在蒙哥马利一起乘坐公交车了。

The boycott, which was led by Martin Luther King, Jr., succeeded. Now African Americans and European Americans can ride the buses together in Montgomery.

罗莎·帕克斯是一位非常勇敢的人。

Rosa Parks was a very brave person.


来源:赫伯特·科尔,《她不会动摇》(纽约:新出版社,2005 年),第 7-8 页。

Source: Herbert Kohl, She Would Not Be Moved (New York: The New Press, 2005), 7–8.

 

 

资料来源7.5:罗宾逊市长

SOURCE 7.5: ROBINSON LETTER TO THE MAYOR


注:在这封信中,乔安·罗宾逊写信给蒙哥马利市长,要求在公交车上给予公平待遇。

Note: In this letter, Jo Ann Robinson writes the mayor of Montgomery asking for fair treatment on the buses.

 

 

尊敬的市长WA Gayle

Honorable Mayor W. A. Gayle

市政府

City Hall

阿拉巴马州蒙哥马利

Montgomery, Alabama

尊敬的先生:

Dear Sir:

妇女政治委员会非常感谢您和市议员们在1954年3月就“城市公交车票价上涨案”举行听证会,允许我们的代表出席。委员会提出了以下几项要求:

The Women’s Political Council is very grateful to you and the City Commissioners for the hearing you allowed our representative during the month of March, 1954, when the “city-bus-fare-increase case” was being reviewed. There were several things the Council asked for:

  1. 一项城市法律规定,黑人可以从后往前坐,白人可以从前往后坐,直到所有座位都坐满为止。
  2. A city law that would make it possible for Negroes to sit from back toward front, and whites from front toward back until all the seats are taken.
  3. 不得要求或强迫黑人先在车头付车费,然后到车尾上车。
  4. That Negroes not be asked or forced to pay fare at front and go to the rear of the bus to enter.
  5. 在黑人居住的住宅区,公交车像在白人居住的社区一样,每个街角都会停靠。
  6. That busses stop at every corner in residential sections occupied by Negroes as they do in communities where whites reside.

我们很高兴地报告,在一些黑人聚居区,公交车现在比以前增加了停靠路口的次数。然而,乘客上车和就座的方式仍然如旧。市长盖尔指出,这些公共交通工具的乘客中有四分之三是黑人。如果没有黑人乘客,这些交通工具根本无法运营。

We are happy to report that busses have begun stopping at more corners now in some sections where Negroes live than previously. However, the same practices in seating and boarding the bus continue. Mayor Gayle, three-fourths of the riders of these public conveyances are Negroes. If Negroes did not patronize them, they could not possibly operate.

越来越多的人开始与邻居和朋友拼车出行,以避免被公交车司机侮辱和羞辱。已有二十五个或更多的地方组织讨论计划在全市范围内抵制公交车。

More and more of our people are already arranging with neighbors and friends to ride to keep from being insulted and humiliated by bus drivers. There has been talk from twenty-five or more local organizations of planning a city-wide boycott of busses.

先生,我们认为,为了争取对所有公交乘客都合理的便利,没有必要采取强硬措施……请您考虑我们的请求,如果可能,请予以采纳,因为现在就有人计划减少甚至完全不乘坐公交车。我们不希望这种情况发生。

We, sir, do not feel that forceful measures are necessary in bargaining for a convenience which is right for all bus passengers…. Please consider this plea, and if possible, act favorably upon it, for even now plans are being made to ride less, or not at all, on our busses. We do not want this.

肃然,

Respectfully yours,

妇女政治委员会

The Women’s Political Council

乔安·罗宾逊,总裁

Jo Ann Robinson, President


来源:摘自乔安·罗宾逊于 1954 年 5 月 21 日在阿拉巴马州蒙哥马利写的一封信。转载于乔安·吉布森·罗宾逊,《蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动及其发起者》,戴维·J·加罗编辑(诺克斯维尔:田纳西大学出版社,1987 年)。

Source: Excerpt from a letter written by Jo Ann Robinson, May 21, 1954, Montgomery, Alabama. Reprinted in Jo Ann Gibson Robinson, The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It, ed. David J. Garrow (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1987).

 

 

来源7.6伯纳西回忆录

SOURCE 7.6: ABERNATHY REMEMBERS


注:在以下摘录中,拉尔夫·阿伯内西牧师回忆了蒙哥马利改进协会(MIA)在抵制运动第一天于当地一座浸信会教堂举行的第一次群众大会。此后,MIA每周定期举行会议,直至抵制运动结束。

Note: In the following excerpt, Reverend Ralph Abernathy remembers the first mass meeting of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) at a local Baptist church on the first day of the boycott. After this, the MIA held regular weekly meetings until the boycott ended.

我和马丁·路德·金一起去参加了会议。当时下着毛毛雨;我一直忙到最后一刻才完成决议。我接到指示:一是取消抗议,二是如果情况需要,就继续抗议,直到诉求得到满足。我们之前成功地进行了一次“一日抗议”,但我们担心如果抗议持续到第二天,可能会失败;或许取消抗议才是更好的选择,这样我们就可以把这次“一日抵制”作为未来谈判的威慑手段。然而,是否继续抗议,最终取决于抗议人群的规模……

We, M. L. King and I, went to the meeting together. It was drizzling; I had been working up until the last minute on the resolutions. I was given instructions: one, to call off the protest, or two, if indicated, to continue the protest until the grievances were granted. We had had a successful “one-day protest,” but we feared that if we extended it beyond the first day, we might fail; it might be better after all to call the protest off, and then we could hold this “one-day boycott” as a threat for future negotiations. However, we were to determine whether to continue the protest by the size of the crowds….

离教堂还有大约二十个街区的时候,我们看到路边停满了车……走近教堂,我们看到一大群人。《蒙哥马利广告报》估计,大约有七千人挤进这座只能容纳不到一千人的教堂。我们花了大约十五分钟才挤过人群,一边恳求:“请让我们过去——我们是金牧师和阿伯内西牧师。请允许我们过去。”……教堂里的人鼓掌至少持续了十分钟。

When we got about twenty blocks from the church we saw cars parked solid…. As we got closer to the church we saw a great mass of people. The Montgomery Advertiser estimated the crowd at approximately 7,000 persons all trying to get in a church that will accommodate less than 1,000. It took us about fifteen minutes to work our way through the crowd by pleading: “Please let us through—we are Reverend King and Reverend Abernathy. Please permit us to get through.” … Those inside applauded for at least ten minutes.

很明显,民众与我们站在一起。正是在那时,所有之前拒绝参与该计划的牧师都主动找到金牧师和我,表示愿意提供服务。民众的这种团结精神显然鼓舞了领导层,并帮助他们摆脱了怯懦、顺从和过度胆怯的情绪。

It was apparent that the people were with us. It was then that all of the ministers who had previously refused to take part in the program came up to Reverend King and me to offer their services. This expression of togetherness on the part of the masses was obviously an inspiration to the leadership and helped to rid it of the cowardly, submissive, over timidity.

会议伊始,我们齐唱《前进,基督精兵》和《向着战争进发》……我们邀请罗莎·帕克斯夫人出席群众集会,因为我们希望她成为我们抗议运动的象征。随后,我们介绍了丹尼尔斯先生,他恰好在当天被捕,这让我们的集会更加振奋……这些人的出现激发了大家的热情,也为运动注入了动力。之后,我们听取了关于继续抵制运动的决议……这些决议得到了教堂内外7000名与会者的一致通过,他们热情高涨……

We began the meeting by singing Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War…. Mrs. Rosa Parks was presented to the mass meeting because we wanted her to become symbolic of our protest movement. Following her we presented Mr. Daniels, who happily for our meeting had been arrested on that day…. The appearance of these persons created enthusiasm, thereby giving momentum to the movement. We then heard the resolutions calling for the continuation of the boycott … unanimously and enthusiastically adopted by the 7,000 individuals both inside and outside the church….


来源:摘自拉尔夫·阿伯内西的硕士论文《社会运动的自然史》,亚特兰大,佐治亚州,1958 年。

Source: Excerpt from Ralph Abernathy’s master’s thesis, “The Natural History of a Social Movement,” Atlanta, GA, 1958.

 

 

工具7.1 :R OSA公园哪里​​

TOOL 7.1: WHERE DID ROSA PARKS SIT?


第一部分:在您认为罗莎·帕克斯于 1955 年 12 月 1 日被捕时所坐的座位上标记“RP”(每个方框代表一个座位)。

PART ONE: Mark “RP” in the seat where you believe Rosa Parks sat when she was arrested on December 1, 1955 (each box is a seat).

图像

第二部分:阅读、讨论和分析这两份警方报告,并完成此图表。

PART TWO: Complete this chart as you read, discuss, and analyze the two police reports.

图像

工具7.2 蒙哥马利法典阿拉巴马法典比较​​

TOOL 7.2: COMPARING THE MONTGOMERY CITY CODE AND THE ALABAMA STATE CODE


说明:仔细阅读每条法律条文,并回答后面的问题。然后思考最后的关键问题。

Directions: Read each law carefully and answer the questions that follow it. Then consider the key question at the end.


如果座位空着,任何乘客拒绝按照主管工作人员的要求,坐在自己所属种族的座位上,这是违法的。

It shall be unlawful for any passenger to refuse to take a seat among those assigned to the race to which he belongs, at the request of any such employee in charge, if there is such a seat vacant.

—蒙哥马利市法典,第6章,第10-11节,1952年

—Montgomery City Code, Chapter 6, Sections 10–11, 1952


  1. “非法”是什么意思?







  2. What does “unlawful” mean?







  3. 乘客在什么情况下无权拒绝公交车工作人员的座位邀请?



    乘客在以下情况下 不能 拒绝座位……







  4. When does a passenger NOT have the right to refuse to take a seat when asked by someone who works for the bus company?



    A passenger cannot refuse to take a seat when …







  5. 当公交车工作人员要求乘客就座时,乘客在什么情况下有权拒绝?



    乘客 可以 在以下情况下拒绝就座……







  6. When does a passenger have the right to refuse to take a seat when asked by someone who works for the bus company?



    A passenger can refuse to take a seat when …








负责任何车辆的汽车运输公司的售票员或代理人有权且必须将每位乘客分配到该乘客所属比赛的车辆区域。

The conductor or agent of the motor transportation company in charge of any vehicle is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the division of the vehicle designated for the race to which the passenger belongs.

—1940年阿拉巴马州法典第48章第301条(31a、b、c)款

—Title 48, §301(31a, b, c), Code of Alabama of 1940


  1. “授权”是什么意思?







  2. What does “authorized” mean?







  3. 乘客将被分配到哪个区域(或“分区”)的座位?







  4. In which section (or “division”) will passengers be assigned seats?







  5. 同区域的乘客会有哪些共同点?







  6. What will passengers have in common with other passengers in their section?







图像

请同意或不同意以下说法:

Agree or disagree with this statement:

“罗莎·帕克斯拒绝让座,违反了法律。”

“Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to give up her seat.”

 

 

请解释你同意或不同意的理由,并引用资料来源来支持你的答案。

Explain why you agree or disagree, and refer to the sources to support your answer.

 

 

工具7.3 :蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动取得成功的原因什么

TOOL 7.3: WHAT LED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE MONTGOMERY BUS BOYCOTT?


  1. 将与抵制活动相关的文档和事件的日期添加到此时间线中。



    图像



  2. Add the dates of the documents and events related to the boycott to this timeline.







  3. 阅读本课不同材料时,请完成此表格。
  4. Complete this chart as you read the different materials for this lesson.

图像

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/aointro.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/aointro.html

由美国国会图书馆举办的“非裔美国人奥德赛”展览,展出了非裔美国人民权斗争不同时期的图片、文件和概述,从美国早期历史到 20 世纪的民权运动。

“African American Odyssey,” an exhibit run by the Library of Congress, includes images, documents, and overviews of different time periods in the struggle for African American civil rights, from early U.S. history through the civil rights movement of the 20th century.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/story/02_bus.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/story/02_bus.html

PBS网站收录了视频系列《目光聚焦奖赏:美国民权运动,1954-1985》,以及大量一手和二手资料。该网站包含那个时代的原始视频片段、照片和其他文献。蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动是众多重点事件之一。

At this site PBS houses the video series Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Movement, 1954–1985, along with a wide range of primary and secondary sources. The site includes original video footage, photographs, and other documents from the era. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is one of the many events highlighted.

http://montgomery.troy.edu/rosaparks/museum/

http://montgomery.troy.edu/rosaparks/museum/

罗莎·帕克斯博物馆位于阿拉巴马州蒙哥马利市中心的特洛伊大学内。该博物馆包含有关罗莎·帕克斯生平和蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的信息。

The Rosa Parks Museum is located at Troy University in downtown Montgomery, Alabama. This site includes information about Rosa Parks’s life and the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

http://www.sojournproject.com/

http://www.sojournproject.com/

“重返过去”是一个面向初中和高中学生的组织,带领学生前往美国南部民权运动时期的热点地区进行实地考察。

Sojourn to the Past is an organization for middle and high school students that leads field trips through civil rights–era hot spots in the southern United States.

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/rosaparks/

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/rosaparks/

本网站由斯坦福大学历史教育小组和乔治·梅森大学历史与新媒体中心联合创建。本部分重点介绍蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动,内容包括原始文献、历史学家对文献的分析、历史学家对相关背景的解释、历史学家思维导图的使用方法、网络探究活动以及改编文献。

This site was created by Stanford University’s History Education Group and George Mason University’s Center for History and New Media. This particular section focuses on the Montgomery Bus Boycott and includes primary documents, historians’ analyses of documents, historians’ explanations of relevant background, ideas for using historians’ think-alouds, web quests, and modified documents.

 

 


第八章

CHAPTER 8


眨眼还是不眨眼:古巴导弹危机

To Blink or Not to Blink: The Cuban Missile Crisis

杰克·施耐德

Jack Schneider

图像

中央情报局。肯尼迪总统在椭圆形办公室会见了柯蒂斯·李梅将军和执行古巴导弹危机任务的侦察飞行员。1962年。图片来源:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_JFK_Library_-_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_-_p1

Central Intelligence Agency. President Kennedy meets in the Oval Office with General Curtis Lemay and reconnaissance pilots who flew the Cuban missions. 1962. Available at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_JFK_Library_-_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_-_p1

“我们四目相对,我觉得对方只是眨了眨眼。”这是约翰·F·肯尼迪总统的国务卿迪安·腊斯克对古巴导弹危机结局的描述。1962年10月的两周时间里,腊斯克和肯尼迪总统执行委员会(简称“执行委员会”)的其他成员掌握着世界的命运。事实证明,他们的行动避免了美国和苏联陷入一场世界末日般的核冲突。

“We were eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked” is how Dean Rusk, President John F. Kennedy’s Secretary of State, characterized the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis. For 2 weeks in October 1962, Rusk and other members of JFK’s Executive Committee (or “Ex Comm”) held the fate of the world in their hands. Their actions, as it turned out, would keep the United States and Soviet Union from plunging into a nuclear conflict of apocalyptic proportions.

拉斯克的这句名言迅速成为冷战时期主张继续扩充军备的决策者的口号。正如拉斯克等人所言,“对方之所以退缩”,仅仅是因为美国的战术军事实力。他们警告说,如果美国无法保持对苏联的军备优势,苏联就会兵临城下。这种鹰派立场,根植于肯尼迪政府时期无所畏惧的边缘政策神话,对美国未来的外交政策产生了重大影响——其中包括持续扩散成本高昂的核武器库以及越南战争的升级。

Rusk’s phrase quickly became the banner for Cold War-era policymakers who advocated a continued arms buildup. The “other fellow blinked,” as Rusk and others like him argued, only because of America’s tactical military strength. Fail to maintain America’s arms advantage over the Soviet Union, they cautioned, and the Russians would be camping on our doorsteps. This hawkish stance, grounded in mythic stories about the fearless brinkmanship of the Kennedy Administration, had major consequences for the future of U.S. foreign policy—consequences that included the continued proliferation of exorbitantly expensive nuclear stockpiles and the escalation of the Vietnam War.

不出所料,古巴导弹危机的这一版本也在美国公众中广为流传。通过报刊、通俗历史读物以及美国历史教科书的报道,它讲述了美国执行委员会成员达成的共识:如果导弹不被撤走,就“封锁古巴,并采取其他军事措施,包括可能的空袭甚至入侵”。 1导弹撤出古巴后不久出版的教科书也同样描述了美国采取的强硬立场。《美国的故事》的作者写道:“赫鲁晓夫赌的是,他能够凭借在美国家门口秘密建造的强大进攻基地与美国对抗”——这一举动本可以让他“在冷战中取得重大胜利”。

Not surprisingly, this version of the Cuban Missile Crisis also became legend among the American public. Conveyed through accounts in the press, popular histories, and of course American history textbooks, it told of a consensus that emerged among the members of Ex Comm favoring “a blockade of Cuba with other military measures, including possibly an air strike and even an invasion, to follow if the missiles were not removed.”1 Textbook accounts appearing shortly after the withdrawal of missiles from Cuba similarly portrayed a hard-line stance taken by the United States. “Khrushchev,” the authors of Story of America wrote, “had gambled on being able to face the U.S. with a secretly built powerful offensive base on its doorstep”—a move that would have given him “a major victory in the cold war.”

然而,很快人们就发现,他并不愿意冒着与美国开战的风险。面对肯尼迪总统强有力的反制措施、美洲国家组织对美国的坚定支持,以及联合国秘书长吴丹的巧妙斡旋,他同意撤走进攻性武器。危机就此过去

It soon became evident, however, that he was not willing to risk actual war with the United States. Faced with President Kennedy’s vigorous counter-measures, solid Organization of American States backing for the United States, and the skillful mediation of Secretary General U Thant of the United Nations, he agreed to remove the offensive weapons. So the crisis passed.2

尽管《美国的故事》比许多美国报纸更重视美洲国家组织和联合国,但故事的主线依然不变——肯尼迪划清了界限。赫鲁晓夫意识到自己无法与强大的美国火力抗衡,明智地选择了退让。

While Story of America gave more credit to the Organization of American States and the United Nations than did many American newspapers, the outline of the story stayed the same—Kennedy drew a line in the sand. Khrushchev, seeing that he had no chance against superior American firepower, wisely backed down.

另一本出版于 20 世纪 60 年代中期的教科书《美国历史》也以类似的方式描述了核僵局:

Another textbook from the mid-1960s, United States History, covered the nuclear standoff similarly:

苏联船只没有试探封锁,而是返航了。各地的人们都松了一口气,尤其是在赫鲁晓夫本人做出让步之后。在与肯尼迪的通信中,这位苏联领导人承诺从古巴撤走进攻性武器,并允许联合国进行核查以确认撤离情况。作为交换,他要求美国解除封锁,并且不要入侵古巴。肯尼迪同意了

Instead of testing the blockade, the Soviet ships turned back. People everywhere breathed easier, especially after Khrushchev himself backed down. In an exchange of letters with Kennedy, the Soviet leader promised to remove offensive weapons from Cuba and to permit inspection by the United Nations to verify the removal. In return, he asked the United States to lift its blockade and not to invade Cuba. Kennedy agreed.3

《美国历史》一书的描述比《美国的故事》更加详尽,它清楚地表明,尽管苏联领导人做出了让步,但他还是从古巴撤走了苏联导弹,并因此获得了回报。

Providing an even more thorough account than Story of America, United States History made it clear that although the Soviet premier backed down, he received something in return for withdrawing the Soviet missiles from Cuba.

最后摘录一段——这段摘自《美国史》(1966年版)——使这幅图景更加完整:

One final excerpt—this one from A History of the United States (1966)—completes the picture:

苏联运送喷气式飞机和军事物资前往古巴的船只,为了避免与执行封锁的美国船只或飞机发生冲突,改变了航线。当时,美国的盟友和美洲国家组织也采取了行动。鉴于肯尼迪总统的立场,苏联最高领导人赫鲁晓夫同意在联合国监督下撤走进攻性武器。作为交换,他要求美国解除封锁,并同意不入侵古巴……这场危机的结果是美国和自由世界的彻底胜利。它使赫鲁晓夫确信,肯尼迪总统准备在必要时动用武力,阻止苏联控制拉丁美洲的任何国家。因此,这位苏联领导人决定不再冒险在古巴推行其计划,以免引发核浩劫

Soviet ships carrying jet aircraft and military supplies to Cuba changed course rather than risk an encounter with American ships or planes enforcing the blockade. When America’s allies and the Organization of American States gave strong support to President Kennedy’s stand, Soviet Premier Khrushchev agreed to remove the offensive weapons under UN supervision. In return, he asked that the United States lift its blockade and agree not to invade Cuba…. The outcome of the crisis was a clear-cut victory for the United States and the free world. It convinced Khrushchev that President Kennedy was prepared to use force if necessary to block Soviet domination of any country in Latin America. The Soviet leader had therefore decided not to risk touching off a nuclear holocaust by pushing his plans in Cuba.4

《美国史》承接《美国历史》和《美国故事》的论述,在社论中指出,美国和世界的胜利是“毫无悬念的”。更重要的是,这场胜利无疑让苏联人认识到,美国的确是一个强大的对手。这说明了什么?只有强大且随时准备展现军事实力的美国才能保障世界和平。

Picking up where United States History and Story of America left off, A History of the United States editorialized that the victory for the United States and the world was “clear-cut.” More importantly, the triumph had unquestionably convinced the Soviets that the Americans were indeed a formidable opponent. The lesson? Only a strong America ready to flex its military muscle could guarantee world peace.

教科书遗漏了什么

What the Textbooks Missed

尽管事件发生后不久撰写的关于古巴导弹危机的记述各有不同,但总体叙述大体一致:苏联孤注一掷地将核武器部署到古巴——这是一项风险极高但经过精心策划的举措,旨在冷战中占据上风。但美国毫不退缩。凭借强大的美国海空战术力量,肯尼迪总统及其执行委员会顾问们无所畏惧地与苏联对峙。作为苏联撤走导弹的交换条件,美国承诺不入侵古巴,而猪湾事件的惨败也让美国对入侵古巴的前景更加渺茫。胜利的天平已经分明。对方只能退缩。

While accounts of the Cuban Missile Crisis written shortly after the event vary, their general narrative is largely the same: The Soviets gambled by moving nuclear weapons into Cuba—a risky but calculated move designed to win the upper hand in the Cold War. But the United States never flinched. With the strength of tactical American air and sea power behind him, President Kennedy and his Ex Comm advisors fearlessly stared down the Soviets. In return for removal of Soviet missiles, the Americans promised not to invade Cuba, which, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, didn’t look too promising anyway. The victory was clear. The other guy blinked.

如果古巴导弹危机的故事在20世纪60年代中期就此结束,教科书上的叙述大体上应该是正确的,或者至少是尽可能准确的。但在接下来的几十年里,古巴核僵局的故事会以微妙而重要的方式不断变化。

If the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis had stopped unfolding in the mid-1960s, the textbook narratives would have gotten it more or less right, or at least as right as they could have gotten it. But over the next few decades, the story of the nuclear standoff in Cuba would continue to change in subtle but important ways.

例如,尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫在1962年致肯尼迪总统的两封谈判信。第一封信的日期是10月26日星期五,要求美国承诺永不入侵古巴,以此换取苏联从古巴撤走导弹。第二封信的日期是10月27日星期六,要求美国从土耳其撤走其部署的中程“朱庇特”导弹。许多关于这场危机的教科书都忽略了这两封信的细节。而那些提及这两封信的教科书通常解释说,执行委员会建议肯尼迪忽略第二封信,接受第一封信中的提议,而肯尼迪也照做了。

Take, for instance, the two negotiation letters that Nikita Khrushchev sent to President Kennedy in 1962. The first letter, dated Friday, October 26, demanded that the United States promise to never invade Cuba, in return for the removal of Soviet missiles from the island. The second letter, dated Saturday, October 27, demanded that the United States remove its intermediate-range Jupiter missiles from Turkey. Many textbook accounts of the crisis leave out all details about the letters. The textbooks that do address them usually explain that Ex Comm advised Kennedy to ignore the second letter and accept the offer in the first, which he did.

“两封信”的说法——肯尼迪采纳了第一封信的内容,而忽略了第二封——在很大程度上得到了罗伯特·F·肯尼迪的日记《十三天》 (资料来源8.1)的证实。这本日记是总统的弟弟在危机期间所写的,在罗伯特·F·肯尼迪遇刺一年后出版。在日记中,罗伯特·肯尼迪描述了10月27日星期六执行委员会会议结束后,他如何致电苏联大使阿纳托利·F·多勃雷宁,并要求当晚在司法部会面。美方愿意讨论从土耳其撤出导弹的可能性,但并非无条件。正如罗伯特·F·肯尼迪在日记中所述,他告诉多勃雷宁,“在这种威胁下,任何交换条件或安排都不可能达成。” 他在一份发给国务卿迪安·腊斯克的绝密备忘录(资料来源8.2)中重申了这一信息。 “根据您的指示,”司法部长在给腊斯克的信中写道,“我重申,任何形式的协议都不可能达成,任何旨在缓解世界其他地区紧张局势的措施,很大程度上取决于苏联和赫鲁晓夫先生在古巴采取行动,而且必须立即采取行动。” 6

The “two-letter” account—Kennedy acting on the first and ignoring the second—is largely corroborated by Robert F. Kennedy’s Thirteen Days (Source 8.1), the diary kept by the president’s brother during the crisis, published a year after RFK’s assassination. In his diary, Robert Kennedy described how after Ex Comm met on Saturday, October 27, he phoned Soviet Ambassador Anatoly F. Dobrynin and asked to meet that night at the Department of Justice. The Americans were willing to discuss the possibility of withdrawing missiles in Turkey, but not without conditions. As RFK reported in his diary, he told Dobrynin that “there could be no quid pro quo or any arrangement made under this kind of threat.”5 He echoed this message in a top-secret memo to Secretary of State Dean Rusk (Source 8.2). “Per your instructions,” the attorney general wrote to Rusk, “I repeated that there could be no deal of any kind and that any steps toward easing tensions in other parts of the world largely depended on the Soviet Union and Mr. Khrushchev taking action in Cuba and taking it immediately.”6

事情到这里变得更加扑朔迷离。当我们转而听取苏联方面的叙述时,却得到了截然不同的印象。苏联前最高领导人尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫去世后出版的回忆录(资料来源8.3)不仅声称美国人认真对待了第二封信,而且还采取了行动。据赫鲁晓夫所述,肯尼迪欣然接受了信中的条款——“作为撤走导弹的交换,[肯尼迪总统]将从土耳其和意大利撤走美国导弹” 7 ——而且这种交换确实是一种交换(拉丁语,意为“以物易物”),而这正是罗伯特·肯尼迪所否认的。

Here is where the plot thickens. When we turn to the Soviets to tell the story, we get a different impression. Former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s memoir (Source 8.3), published after his death, not only claims that the Americans took the second letter seriously, but also that they acted on it. According to Khrushchev, Kennedy willingly agreed to the letter’s terms—“In exchange for withdrawal of our missiles, [President Kennedy] would remove American missiles from Turkey and Italy”7—and that the exchange was indeed a quid pro quo (Latin, meaning “one thing for another”), the very thing Robert Kennedy denied.

肯尼迪总统是否以撤走瞄准莫斯科的导弹为交换条件,换取苏联从古巴撤走导弹?20世纪60年代中后期的教科书记载从未提及过这样的交易。但话说回来,它们又怎么可能提及呢?毕竟,罗伯特·肯尼迪的《十三天》直到1969年才出版,而赫鲁晓夫的《赫鲁晓夫回忆录:最后的遗嘱》则是在1974年出版的。

Did President Kennedy remove missiles aimed at Moscow in return for the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba? Textbook accounts from the mid- and late-1960s never mention such a deal. But then, how could they? After all, Robert Kennedy’s Thirteen Days wasn’t published until 1969, while Khrushchev’s Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament was published in 1974.

那么,这两本书出版之后出版的教科书呢?只字未提。正如1995年出版的教科书《美国是什么样的》的作者所写:

And what about textbooks published after both books came out? Not a word. As the authors of the textbook America Is, published in 1995, wrote:

尽管美国已经向苏联表明了其言而有信,但导弹研制工作仍在继续。10月26日,肯尼迪总统接到了苏联最高领导人赫鲁晓夫的电话。几天后,双方就古巴问题达成协议。苏联同意撤走导弹。作为回报,美国同意结束对古巴的封锁,并且不入侵古巴

Although the United States had shown the Soviet Union that it meant what it said, work on the missiles continued. Then, on October 26, President Kennedy heard from Soviet Premier Khrushchev. In a few days, they came to terms on Cuba. The Soviet Union agreed to remove the missiles. As a result, the United States agreed to end the quarantine and not to invade Cuba.8

尽管《美国国歌》 (2007)中的故事更加详尽,但其内容大体相同:

Though more detailed, the story presented in The American Anthem (2007) is much the same:

肯尼迪收到赫鲁晓夫的一封信,信中提出,如果美国承诺永不……,德国愿意撤走导弹。入侵古巴。第二天,他收到赫鲁晓夫一封措辞更为强硬的信,要求美国从土耳其撤走导弹。执行委员会建议肯尼迪忽略第二封信,接受第一封信中的提议。总统照做了,赫鲁晓夫随即宣布他将拆除导弹。9

[Kennedy] received a letter from Khrushchev offering to remove the missiles if the United States pledged never to invade Cuba. The next day he received a tougher letter from Khrushchev demanding that the United States remove its missiles from Turkey. The Ex Comm advised Kennedy to ignore the second letter and accept the offer in the first letter. The president did so, and Khrushchev announced he would dismantle the missiles.9

虽然后一种教科书叙述包含了赫鲁晓夫信件的故事,但它断然否认了肯尼迪同意从土耳其撤走朱庇特导弹以换取苏联从古巴撤军的可能性。

While the latter textbook account includes the story of Khrushchev’s letters, it rejects outright the possibility that Kennedy agreed to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for a Soviet withdrawal from Cuba.

肯尼迪总统及其顾问是否在1962年与苏联达成某种交换条件,这是一个引人入胜的历史争议。事实上,我们对这一事件的全部理解都取决于此。如果没有达成协议,那么传统的冷战叙事依然成立。正是强大的实力,而非不为人知的幕后交易,才使我们免于第三次世界大战。另一方面,如果苏联的观点是正确的——即解决方案是通过斡旋达成的协议——那么我们就必须修正我们的理解,并接受这样一个事实:战争之所以得以避免,是因为超级大国达成了一项双方都能接受的协议。

The question of whether President Kennedy and his advisors agreed to a quid pro quo with the Soviets in 1962 is a fascinating historical controversy. In fact, our whole understanding of this incident hinges on it. If there was no deal, then the traditional Cold War narrative remains intact. Brute strength, not back-room deals kept from public view, saved us from World War III. On the other hand, if the Soviet view is right—that resolution came about by brokering a deal—we have to revise our understanding, and accept that war was averted because the superpowers came up with an agreement that both sides could live with.

学生的教科书常常忽略或轻描淡写某些内容。但第二封信告诉学生,虽然教科书是一个很好的起点,但即使是最厚重的著作也并非完整无缺。事实上,有时它们甚至完全错误。仔细审视教科书不仅能教会学生批判性地阅读,还能让他们意识到需要深入研究历史资料才能了解真相。这种方法,我们称之为“打开教科书”,它将教科书从一个永远拥有最终解释权的权威机构,转变为一个必须像其他历史资料一样进行批判性评估的资料

Students’ textbooks often overlook or minimize. But the second letter shows students that while textbooks are a good place to start, even the most massive tomes are incomplete. Sometimes, in fact, they’re just plain wrong. Scrutinizing the textbook not only teaches students to take a critical approach to reading, it can show them the need to puzzle through historical sources in order to find out what really happened. This approach, what we refer to as “Opening Up the Textbook,” changes the text from an inert authority, always issuing the final word, to one more historical source that must be critically evaluated like any other.10

 

 

那么,究竟发生了什么?古巴导弹危机的核心问题很简单:肯尼迪政府是否同意从土耳其边境撤走瞄准莫斯科的导弹,以换取苏联从古巴撤走导弹?简而言之,“对方眨眼”的故事是神话还是历史?

So, What Happened? The question at the heart of the Cuban Missile Crisis is simple: Did the Kennedy Administration agree to remove missiles pointed at Moscow from the Turkish border in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba? In short, is the story of “the other fellow blinking” more myth than history?

赫鲁晓夫的书声称双方曾进行过明确的交换,但一份美国绝密备忘录的证据却与此说法相悖。罗伯特·肯尼迪给迪安·腊斯克的指示很明确:“我回复说,不可能有任何交换条件——不可能达成此类协议。这是北约必须考虑的问题。” 11

While Khrushchev’s book makes the case that there was an explicit exchange, evidence in the form of a top-secret American memo contradicts that claim. Robert Kennedy’s message to Dean Rusk was clear: “I replied that there could be no quid pro quo—no deal of this kind could be made. This was a matter that had to be considered by NATO.”11

我们仅仅因为罗伯特·肯尼迪站在我们这边就相信他吗?不。历史认知与支持自己喜欢的球队是两码事。我们有义务考虑所有证据,即使这些证据来自对方阵营。

Do we believe RFK just because he was on our side? No. Historical understanding is not the same as rooting for your favorite team. We are obliged to consider all of the evidence, even when it comes from the other side.

历史学家不会在浩如烟海的“他说/她说”中苦苦搜寻,而是寻求相互印证的证据。印证是历史推理的核心实践,它指的是比较不同的叙述,从而拼凑出事件的准确图景。历史学家不会简单地接受某个版本的故事而否定其他版本,而是努力发现它们之间的共同点和分歧。他们会问:各种叙述的共同之处是什么?它们在哪些方面存在分歧?它们在哪些方面存在差异?这些差异可能由什么原因造成?如何才能调和这些叙述?

Instead of sifting through endless mountains of he said/she said, historians seek corroborating evidence. Corroboration, a practice at the core of historical reasoning, is the act of comparing different accounts in order to piece together an accurate picture of what happened. Rather than simply accepting one version of a story over another, historians work to discover points of overlap and departure. What, they ask, is common to the various accounts? When do they disagree? Where do they diverge? What might explain these discrepancies? How might the accounts be reconciled?

因此,究竟该相信尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫还是罗伯特·肯尼迪,这不仅是冷战时期的一个谜题,也是历史学家必须进行的侦查工作的绝佳范例。所以,为了解开这个谜题,我们必须求助于其他文献资料,以帮助我们重构历史。

Thus, the question of whether to believe Nikita Khrushchev or Robert Kennedy is not just a Cold War riddle, but a shining example for students of the detective work historians must do. And so, to solve this riddle, we must turn to other documents to help us reconstruct the story.

举例来说:除了罗伯特·肯尼迪的日记和尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫的回忆录之外,一份秘密公报也涉及了第二封信的内容。这份文件——一份从苏联驻美大使多勃雷宁的华盛顿办公室发回莫斯科的加密电报——在相关事件发生三十年后由苏联官员公布,它证实了为什么历史学家通常会受益于时间的推移和新信息的出现。

Case in point: In addition to Robert Kennedy’s diary and Nikita Khrushchev’s memoir, a secret communiqué addressed the matter of the second letter. Released by Soviet officials 3 decades after the events in question, the document—a coded transmission from Ambassador Dobrynin’s Washington office back to Moscow—confirms why historians generally benefit from the passage of time, and the surfacing of new information.

在这份苏联解体后解密的秘密电报(资料来源 8.4)中,多勃雷宁描述了他与罗伯特·肯尼迪的会面。在执行委员会收到赫鲁晓夫的第二封信后不久,总统的弟弟就致电多勃雷宁安排会面。两位消息人士都同意了这次会面。据多勃雷宁和肯尼迪所述,双方就美国保证不入侵古巴达成了一致。但尽管罗伯特·肯尼迪声称在从土耳其撤走朱庇特导弹的问题上立场坚定,苏联大使的说法却截然不同:

In this secret cable, released following the dissolution of the Soviet Union (Source 8.4), Dobrynin describes his meeting with RFK. Shortly after the Ex Comm received Khrushchev’s second letter, the president’s brother called Dobrynin to schedule a meeting. Both sources agreed to this. The two sides, according to both Dobrynin and Kennedy, reached agreement on American assurances not to invade Cuba. But where RFK claimed to stand firm on the question of removing Jupiter missiles from Turkey, the Soviet Ambassador tells a different story:

“那土耳其呢?”我问罗伯特·肯尼迪。

“And what about Turkey?” I asked R. Kennedy.

“如果这是我之前提到的那项规定的唯一障碍,那么总统认为解决这个问题并没有什么不可克服的困难,”罗伯特·肯尼迪回答说。“总统面临的最大困难是公开讨论土耳其问题。以前在土耳其部署导弹基地是由北约理事会的特别决议决定的。现在美国总统单方面宣布从土耳其撤出导弹基地——这将损害北约的整个结构以及美国作为北约领导者的地位……不过,肯尼迪总统也准备就此问题与赫鲁晓夫达成一致。我认为,从土耳其撤出这些基地,”罗伯特·肯尼迪说,“我们需要4到5个月的时间。” 12

“If that is the only obstacle to achieving the regulation I mentioned earlier, then the president doesn’t see any un-surmountable difficulties in resolving this issue,” replied R. Kennedy. “The greatest difficulty for the president is the public discussion of the issue of Turkey. Formerly the deployment of missile bases in Turkey was done by a special decision of the NATO Council. To announce now a unilateral decision by the president of the USA to withdraw missile bases from Turkey—this would damage the entire structure of NATO and the U.S. position as the leader of NATO…. However, President Kennedy is ready to come to agree on that question with N.S. Khrushchev, too. I think that in order to withdraw these bases from Turkey,” R. Kennedy said, “we need 4–5 months.”12

多勃雷宁的说法似乎解决了这个问题,既证实了赫鲁晓夫的说法,又削弱了双方的说法。罗伯特·肯尼迪的故事以及“对方眨眼”理论。据多勃雷宁称,美国人收到了赫鲁晓夫的第二封信,并迅速召集会议,商讨交换条件的细节。

Dobrynin’s account seems to settle the matter, corroborating Khrushchev’s account and undermining both Robert Kennedy’s story and the “the other guy blinked” theory. According to Dobrynin, the Americans received Khrushchev’s second letter and quickly called for a meeting in which the details of the quid pro quo were hashed out.

然而,苏联大使撰写这份电报或许还有其他动机——历史学家在利用这份文件佐证赫鲁晓夫的说法时,必须考虑到这一点。多勃雷宁在导弹危机爆发时年仅43岁,是担任苏联驻美国大使最年轻的人,而且那年才刚刚到任。历史学家推测,这位年轻的大使或许只是在迎合赫鲁晓夫,也就是不惜一切代价保住自己的职位。否则,他们不禁要问,在1986年苏联多位领导人被罢免的情况下,多勃雷宁又如何能一直担任这个职位呢?此外,对苏联而言,声称已经达成协议也符合自身利益。谁愿意承认自己屈服于压力呢?与其如此,不如宣称已经达成协议,这样才能保住颜面。

Still, the Soviet ambassador may have had some other motives for writing the cable—something historians must consider when using the document to corroborate Khrushchev’s version of the story. Dobrynin, only 43 at the time of the missile crisis, was the youngest person to serve as Soviet Ambassador to the United States, and had only arrived in Washington that year. Perhaps, historians have speculated, the young ambassador was simply telling Khrushchev what he wanted to hear, that is, doing whatever it took to keep his job. How else, they ask, could Dobrynin have survived in that post until 1986, with so many Soviet premiers ousted during that time span? Beyond that, it was in the Soviets’ interest to claim that a deal had been brokered. Who wants to admit that they caved in to pressure? Better to save face by claiming a deal had been reached.

即便如此,如果有人倾向于认为多勃雷宁的说法可靠,那么罗伯特·肯尼迪的日记仍然存在疑问。毕竟,真正的佐证需要从不同的角度进行考察。而美国关于从土耳其撤出导弹的立场——肯尼迪的日记,在他1968年遇刺后由他的朋友特德·索伦森编辑成《十三天》 ——表明,这其中并不存在任何交换条件

Even so, were one tempted to view Dobrynin’s account as reliable, there is still the question of Robert Kennedy’s diary. Real corroboration, after all, utilizes different vantage points. And the Americans’ position regarding the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey—Kennedy’s diary, edited into Thirteen Days by his friend Ted Sorenson after RFK was assassinated in 1968—indicates that there was no quid pro quo.

真的是这样吗?

Or does it?

为了寻找更多佐证,历史学家们或许会关注1989年在莫斯科举行的一次会议。在那次会议上,索伦森抛出了一个在当时可谓惊天重磅的消息。索伦森声称要“坦白”,并震惊地宣布:“我曾是罗伯特·肯尼迪那本书的编辑。而且,”他继续说道,“日记里非常明确地写着(导弹协议)是交易的一部分。”但由于导弹协议在1969年《十三天》出版时仍是秘密,索伦森便擅自充当了审查员的角色,将“(罗伯特·肯尼迪的)日记中的相关内容删掉了”(资料来源8.5)。这委婉地表达了他篡改历史的意图。

In search of further corroborating evidence, historical detectives might turn to a 1989 conference in Moscow in which Sorensen dropped what was, at the time, nothing short of a bombshell. Saying that he wanted to make a “confession,” Sorensen stunned his audience by announcing: “I was the editor of Robert Kennedy’s book. And,” he continued, “the diary was very explicit that [the missile agreement] was part of the deal.” But because the missile deal was still a secret in 1969, when Thirteen Days was published, Sorenson took it upon himself to act as censor and “edit that out of [RFK’s] diaries” (Source 8.5). This is a polite way of saying that he took it upon himself to fabricate history.

让我们回顾一下。正如苏联方面所声称的,也正如泰德·索伦森现在所承认的,赫鲁晓夫的第二封信并没有被美国人“忽视”。肯尼迪总统也没有对他的苏联同行冷眼相待。相反,美国人进行了外交谈判,并与他们的对手达成了协议。

Let’s take stock. Khrushchev’s second letter, as the Soviets claimed, and Ted Sorenson now admits, was not “ignored” by the Americans. Nor did President Kennedy simply give his Soviet counterpart the evil eye. Rather, the Americans engaged in diplomatic negotiations and reached a deal with their adversaries.

但如果真是如此,那就引出了一个问题:为什么?如果美国海军能够执行对古巴的封锁,美国空军必要时也能摧毁岛上的苏联导弹,肯尼迪为何还要与苏联谈判?答案其实很简单:美国在古巴导弹危机期间的战术军事优势被夸大了。据学者托马斯·布兰顿所述,肯尼迪的参谋长联席会议成员曾告诉总统,空袭并不能保证摧毁所有部署在古巴的苏联导弹。 13

But if that is the case, it begs the question: Why? Why would Kennedy negotiate with the Soviets if the American Navy could enforce its blockade of Cuba and the American Air Force could, if necessary, destroy the Soviet missiles on the island? The answer, it turns out, is a simple one: The impact of America’s tactical military advantage during the Cuban Missile Crisis was overstated. Kennedy’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to scholar Thomas Blanton, told the President that air strikes could not guarantee the destruction of all Soviet missiles placed in Cuba.13

为什么要如此保密?肯尼迪政府为何要继续散布肆无忌惮的边缘政策?为什么不坦白承认这项避免了第三次世界大战的协议,尤其是在代价仅仅是肯尼迪总统所说的“土耳其的一些过时导弹”的情况下?14

Why all the secrecy? Why did the Kennedy Administration continue to perpetuate stories of unblinking brinkmanship? Why not come clean about an arrangement that prevented World War III, especially if the cost was only what President Kennedy called “some obsolete missiles in Turkey?”14

多勃雷宁在电报中提到的一个问题是,肯尼迪担心公开宣布这项协议可能会损害北约以及美国作为联盟领导者的地位。肯尼迪执行委员会的另一位成员麦克乔治·邦迪也证实了这种担忧,他指出,“尽管保密付出了诸多代价,但它避免了美国国内和大西洋联盟内部出现严重的政治分裂。” 15

One issue, which Dobrynin mentions in his cable, was Kennedy’s fear that publicly announcing the agreement might hurt NATO as well as the United States’s position as alliance leader. McGeorge Bundy, another member of Kennedy’s Ex Comm, confirmed this concern, noting that “for all its costs, secrecy prevented a serious political division both within the United States and in the Atlantic Alliance.”15

对肯尼迪家族而言,关键在于,如果在冷战白热化时期真相大白,他们会显得对苏联的侵略行为态度软弱。在1960年的总统竞选中,约翰·肯尼迪曾批评时任副总统尼克松,指责他允许一个共产主义政权在佛罗里达海岸90英里处夺取政权。因此,作为总统,肯尼迪竭力在对古巴问题上展现积极主动的姿态,尤其是在猪湾事件惨败以及刺杀菲德尔·卡斯特罗未遂事件泄密之后。司法部长罗伯特·肯尼迪也有自己的总统野心,正如苏联大使阿纳托利·多勃雷宁在他的回忆录中所述,罗伯特·肯尼迪担心“如果关于土耳其导弹的秘密交易曝光,他的前途可能会受损”。 16无论是出于对国家安全的担忧,还是出于对自身选举前景的考量,肯尼迪团队都认为,展现强硬和强硬的形象比展现外交手腕和灵活变通的形象更有说服力。

At stake for the Kennedys was the possibility that if the truth had been revealed at the height of Cold War mania, they would appear soft on Soviet aggression. JFK, in the 1960 presidential race, had criticized then-Vice President Nixon for allowing a Communist regime to seize power 90 miles off the Florida coast. Consequently, as president, Kennedy took great pains to appear proactive toward Cuba, particularly after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and leaks about failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Attorney General Robert Kennedy had his own presidential ambitions, and as Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin recalled in his memoir, RFK feared that “his prospects could be damaged if this secret deal about the missiles in Turkey were to come out.”16 Whether out of concern for national security or their own electoral future, the Kennedy team believed that a story about aggressiveness and strength would play better than one about diplomacy and flexibility.

电影还原历史了吗?电影常常会出错。然而,就激发学生兴趣、帮助学生想象昔日世界而言,电影却是教师最有力的工具之一。最近一部讲述古巴导弹危机真实历史的电影,片名取自罗伯特·肯尼迪的日记;教师们自然会想知道,《惊爆十三天》这部电影是否还原了历史真相。17

Did the Movie Get It Right? Movies often get it wrong. And yet, in terms of galvanizing student interest and helping students imagine the world as it once was, film is among the most powerful tools in a teacher’s arsenal. One recent motion picture, featuring the factual history behind the Cuban Missile Crisis, takes its title from Robert Kennedy’s diary; naturally, teachers will wonder if Thirteen Days got it right.17

就美苏之间的外交谈判而言,这部电影出人意料地准确,还原了大多数教科书叙述中都忽略的细节。没错,肯尼迪总统曾与苏联军舰对峙,迪安·腊斯克也注意到对方眨了眨眼。但这部电影也讲述了肯尼迪兄弟如何灵活应对威胁,努力寻求共识的故事。执行委员会成员中,有些人赞成采取隔离措施,而不是空袭或入侵。

In terms of the diplomatic negotiations between the Americans and the Soviets, the movie is surprisingly accurate, recounting details that most textbook narratives omit. Yes, President Kennedy stares down Soviet ships and Dean Rusk observes that the other guy blinked. But the film also tells the story of the Kennedy brothers flexibly adapting to the threat, working to build consensus among the members of Ex Comm in favor of quarantine rather than air raid or invasion.

这部电影真实地描绘了专栏作家沃尔特·李普曼得知可能进行导弹交换的消息、苏联的第二封信,以及罗伯特·肯尼迪与多勃雷宁大使的会面。在这次会面中,美国承诺从土耳其撤出导弹,以换取苏联从古巴撤军,并承诺对该协议保密。

The film realistically depicts the leak to columnist Walter Lippmann about a possible missile exchange, the second letter from the Soviets, and the meeting between Robert Kennedy and Ambassador Dobrynin in which promises were made to withdraw American missiles from Turkey in exchange for a Soviet withdrawal from Cuba and to keep the agreement secret.

但正如学者菲利普·布伦纳所指出的,这部电影为了迎合观众的兴趣,也对历史进行了虚构。 18或许最明显的歪曲之处在于肯尼迪的助手肯尼·奥唐纳在危机中扮演的关键角色(由凯文·科斯特纳饰演,该角色做出了一些关键决策,例如指示海军飞行员否认在古巴上空侦察飞行时遭到枪击)。此外,一位驻扎在华盛顿的克格勃特工在多大程度上代表赫鲁晓夫总理发言也值得商榷。

But, as scholar Philip Brenner notes, the film also invents history in the name of viewer interest.18 Perhaps the most significant distortion is the apparently pivotal role played by Kennedy aide Kenny O’Donnell in the crisis (played by Kevin Costner, the character makes critical decisions, like instructing Navy pilots to deny being fired on during reconnaissance flights over Cuba). Also questionable is the degree to which a KGB agent stationed in Washington speaks for Premier Khrushchev.

如果这些不准确之处是为了增强戏剧性叙事效果而刻意添加的,或许还能被原谅。但更令人担忧的是学生观看《惊爆十三天》后的整体印象。布伦纳回忆起他和十几岁的女儿讨论苏联为何在古巴部署导弹的对话,他指出女儿从这部电影中得出的结论很简单:苏联人是坏人。影片很少将苏联人(或者古巴人)描绘成邪恶势力,但由于它完全聚焦于美国对危机的反应,人们很难不同情美国对抗这个看似非理性且好战的敌人。此外,支持本土阵营也是人之常情。

Such inaccuracies, if included for the sake of dramatic narrative, might easily be forgiven. Of greater concern is the overall impression students will get from watching Thirteen Days. Recalling a conversation he had with his teenage daughter about why the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, Brenner notes that the conclusion she drew from the film was a simple one: The Soviets were bad. The film rarely portrays the Soviets (or the Cubans, for that matter) as malevolent forces, but because it focuses exclusively on the American response to the crisis, it’s hard to resist sympathizing with the United States against a seemingly irrational and belligerent foe. Besides, it’s natural to root for the home team.

但苏联决定向古巴部署导弹并非毫无缘由。约翰·F·肯尼迪在其短暂的总统任期内,扩大了美国对苏联的军备优势,使美国在远程轰炸机和导弹方面拥有近十倍于苏联的优势。 19为了安抚苏联内部的强硬派,并防止美国再次对古巴发动秘密行动,赫鲁晓夫决定在古巴部署中程弹道导弹。布伦纳指出,此举“比建造大量可从苏联发射的新型洲际弹道导弹更经济,也能对可能发生的美国攻击起到一定的威慑作用。” 20虽然苏联人可能将世界推到了核灾难的边缘,但他们的行动并非毫无缘由。

But the Soviet decision to move missiles into Cuba did not come out of nowhere. During his short time in office, John F. Kennedy had expanded America’s arms advantage over the Soviet Union, giving the United States a nearly ten-to-one advantage in long-range bombers and missiles.19 In an effort to placate hard-liners within the Russian ranks, as well as protect Cuba against another U.S.-backed covert operation, Khrushchev decided to place intermediate-range ballistic missiles on the island. Such a move, states Brenner, was “a cheaper way to provide some deterrent against a feared U.S. attack than to build many new intercontinental ballistic missiles that could be launched from the Soviet Union.”20 While the Russians may have brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster, they did not do so without cause.

影片省略了这段叙述。因此,缺乏更广泛背景的观众(比如你的学生)很可能会认为美国是完美无瑕的正义一方,而苏联则是不理智的战争贩子。然而,古巴导弹危机并非善恶之争,而是两个对手同时展现出弱点与力量、防御与侵略、克制与好战的较量。最终,避免第三次世界大战爆发的,正是传统的外交手段——双方达成的秘密协议,使得任何一方都无法完全满足自己的需求。

That narrative is omitted from the film. As a consequence, viewers without a broader context (read: your students) may well walk away believing that the United States was the unsullied good guy and the Soviets irrational warmongers. Instead, rather than a story of good and evil, the Cuban Missile Crisis is one of rivals simultaneously displaying weakness and strength, defense and aggression, restraint and belligerence. In the end, it was plain old-fashioned diplomacy—secret deals in which neither side got everything it wanted—that averted World War III.

为什么要教授古巴导弹危机?

Why Teach About the Cuban Missile Crisis?

一个逐渐揭开面纱的故事。学生们很难理解,有时我们离某个事件越远,就越能理解它。然而,在很多情况下,这正是我们了解过去的方式。教授古巴导弹危机提供了一个绝佳的机会,向学生们展示我们对历史的理解是如何变化的。随着时间的流逝,历史学家与某个事件之间的距离拉大,历史的碎片开始逐渐拼凑完整。毕竟,历史从来都不是完全透明的——如果真是如此,历史学家就无需如此费力地去拼凑真相了。正如前苏联领导人肯尼迪之子谢尔盖·赫鲁晓夫所说:“肯尼迪总统不想在历史上留下任何痕迹,他害怕被指责迎合共产党。对此无能为力……重要的是,总统和他的父亲彼此理解对方的愿望,并且能够互相信任。” 21毫不奇怪,对历史学家来说,拼凑出古巴导弹危机的故事一直是一个挑战。但随着解密文件的曝光,以及泰德·索伦森等参与者的爆料,古巴导弹危机的真相正变得越来越清晰。

A Story That Gradually Reveals Itself. It’s hard for students to grasp that sometimes the more distant we are from an event, the more we understand about it. Yet, in many instances, this is exactly how we come to know the past. Teaching the Cuban Missile Crisis presents a ripe opportunity to show students how our understanding of history changes. As time puts distance between historians and an event, pieces of the puzzle start to fall into place. History, after all, is never completely transparent—if it were, historians wouldn’t need to work so hard piecing it together. According to Sergei Khrushchev, the son of the former Soviet premier, “President Kennedy didn’t want to leave any traces to go down in history and he was afraid of being accused of catering to the communists. Nothing could be done about that … the important thing was that they, the President and Father, understood each other’s aspirations and could trust each other.”21 Not surprisingly, putting together the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis has been a challenge for historians. But with declassified documents coming to light, and revelations from participants like Ted Sorenson, the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis is becoming clearer.

佐证史料。由于历史记载常常相互矛盾,历史学家会核实各种史料,以期调和其中的差异。从这个意义上讲,历史推理和法理推理有很多重叠之处。因此,古巴导弹危机为学生提供了一个绝佳的机会,让他们了解历史学家所做的这类考证工作。一旦开始核实有关1962年事件的史料,就会发现事实与传统叙述截然不同。正如一位学者所言,真相并非肯尼迪在与赫鲁晓夫的对峙中获胜,而是这场冲突最终“仅仅是因为双方都愿意冒着蒙羞的风险,而不是世界末日”。 22通过引入新的史料,历史学家不仅确定肯尼迪政府同意从土耳其撤走导弹,而且还确定他们认为有必要向公众隐瞒这一事实。

Corroborating Sources. Because historical accounts may often contradict one another, historians corroborate sources in an effort to reconcile discrepancies. In this sense, historical reasoning and jurisprudential reasoning have a lot of overlap. Thus, the Cuban Missile Crisis is a great opportunity to introduce students to the type of detective work that historians do. Once one begins to corroborate sources about the events of 1962, the story turns out to be quite different from the traditional narrative. As one scholar has put it, the reality is less that Kennedy won a staredown against Khrushchev, and more that the conflict was ultimately “resolved only because both men were willing to risk humiliation rather than Armageddon.”22 By bringing in new sources, historians determine not only that the Kennedy Administration agreed to withdraw missiles from Turkey, but that they felt it was important to conceal this fact from us, the public at large.

思考从历史中汲取的教训。人们经常从古巴汲取的教训导弹危机的核心在于,美国必须毫不动摇地直面敌人的侵略。例如,肯尼迪和约翰逊政府在越南推行的美国外交政策,正是基于这样一种观点:只有毫不妥协的军事力量才能应对共产主义的威胁。

Thinking About the Lessons Drawn from History. The frequently drawn lesson from the Cuban Missile Crisis is that the United States must unflinchingly face down the aggressions of its enemies. The American foreign policy in Vietnam pursued by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, for instance, was driven by the view that only unyielding military force could meet the Communist threat.

但事实证明,这种毫不妥协的边缘政策的教训在历史上并不准确。斯坦福大学历史学家巴顿·伯恩斯坦提出疑问:肯尼迪在导弹危机中“取得胜利”的信念是否影响了林登·约翰逊,以至于他在1966年至1968年间“不顾顾问的劝告,执意在东南亚寻求胜利”。伯恩斯坦进一步指出,如果约翰逊总统和他的美国同胞一样,了解1962年10月协议的真相,他或许会在心理上,甚至在政治上,更自由地改变政策。 23但他并不知道。因此,古巴导弹危机不仅凸显了正确理解历史的重要性,也引发了我们对历史教训的思考:我们究竟能从历史中汲取哪些经验?

But it appears that the lesson of unblinking brinkmanship is historically inaccurate. Stanford historian Barton Bernstein asks whether a belief in Kennedy’s “‘victory’” in the missile crisis may have influenced Lyndon Johnson as he “struggled on, even against the counsel of advisors, for his own triumph in Southeast Asia in 1966–1968.” Bernstein goes on to suggest that President Johnson might have felt “psychologically, and even politically, more free to change policy if he had known, along with his fellow Americans, the truth of the October 1962 settlement.”23 But he did not. Thus, the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis not only highlights the importance of getting history right, it raises questions about what types of lessons we can draw from the past.

你会如何使用这些材料?

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一(2-3小时课程)。第三次世界大战是否因为“对方退缩”而得以避免?或者,世界末日是否因为美苏外交官达成妥协,双方都保住了颜面而得以避免?利用这些一手资料,引导学生在接受任何版本之前,先核实历史记载。本情景对第六章的“打开课本”策略提出了不同的见解。

Scenario 1 (2–3 Hour Lesson). Was World War III prevented because the “other guy blinked”? Or was Armageddon cheated because American and Soviet diplomats reached a compromise that allowed both parties to save face? Use these primary sources to engage students in corroborating historical accounts before accepting any version as true. This scenario offers a different take on the “Opening Up the Textbook” strategy from Chapter 6.


CCSS #6,#9

CCSS #6, #9


本课开始时,请学生阅读一本关于古巴导弹危机的教科书(可以是本章列出的教科书之一,也可以是你们教科书中的)。无论书中是否提及赫鲁晓夫的第二封信,问题依然存在:我们如何才能知道肯尼迪政府是如何应对的?

Begin this lesson by asking students to read a textbook account of the Cuban Missile Crisis (either one of those listed in this chapter or the one from your textbook). Whether or not the book mentions Khrushchev’s second letter, the question remains: How can we know how the Kennedy Administration responded?

将学生分成小组,给他们罗伯特·肯尼迪写给国务卿的绝密备忘录(改编版见资料8.2a ,原始“绝密”政府文件见资料8.2b),让他们思考肯尼迪与苏联大使多勃雷宁会面时究竟发生了什么。给各小组一些时间讨论,然后向他们提供另外两份文件——肯尼迪日记摘录(资料8.1)和尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫回忆录(资料8.3)。学生们可能会进行初步的核实,认为由于肯尼迪的两份文件内容一致,他的说法必然是真实的。而其他学生则会得出结论:这是肯尼迪和赫鲁晓夫各执一词,我们和他们各执一词。

Divide students into groups, giving them Robert Kennedy’s top-secret memorandum to the Secretary of State (see Source 8.2a for the adapted version, and Source 8.2b for the original “Top Secret” government document), asking them to consider what really happened during his meeting with Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin. Allow the groups time to discuss, then provide them with two additional documents—the excerpts from Kennedy’s diary (Source 8.1) and Nikita Khrushchev’s memoir (Source 8.3). Students will likely engage in a rudimentary form of corroboration, noting that because the two documents by Robert Kennedy are consistent, his account must be true. Other students will come to the conclusion that it’s Kennedy’s word against Khrushchev’s, our side against theirs.

此时,向学生分发多布雷宁的解密电报(资料来源 8.4),并询问电报内容如何影响他们对事件的理解。然后,向他们提供泰德·索伦森的“供词”(资料来源 8.5)。

At this point, give students Dobrynin’s declassified cable (Source 8.4), and ask how the story it tells affects their understanding of what happened. Then, provide them with Ted Sorenson’s “confession” (Source 8.5).

最后,请学生从电影《惊爆十三天》中选择一段节选,并根据本课所学资料解释其准确性或不准确性。学生必须提供文献或其他研究资料作为证据,以支持他们对电影准确性的判断。

Finally, have students select an excerpt from the movie Thirteen Days and explain how it is accurate or inaccurate based on what they learned from the sources in this lesson. Students must include evidence from the documents or other research that led them to their decision about the film’s accuracy.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 质疑教科书和电影中的叙事描述
  • Questioning narrative accounts in textbooks and film
  • 佐证来源
  • Corroborating sources
  • 基于证据的思维和论证
  • Evidence-based thinking and argumentation
  • 基于证据构建叙事
  • Constructing a narrative based on evidence

情景二(1-2小时课程):为什么要隐瞒真相?本情景是对情景一的拓展,旨在让学生练习思考历史背景。

Scenario 2 (1–2 Hour Lesson). Why hide the truth? This scenario, which expands on the first, is designed to give students practice in thinking about historical context.


CCSS #1

11–12 #3

CCSS #1

11–12 #3


首先,引导学生完成上一情境中描述的分析和讨论环节。对于本情境,请学生思考肯尼迪政府为何要对美国公众隐瞒其外交谈判。

First, lead students through the analysis and discussion rounds described in the previous scenario. For this scenario, ask students to consider why the Kennedy Administration wished to conceal their diplomatic negotiations from the American public.

向学生提供1960年约翰·F·肯尼迪和理查德·尼克松总统辩论的文字记录节选(资料8.6)以及1961年理查德·古德温写给肯尼迪总统的绝密备忘录(资料8.7)。第一份文件证明肯尼迪在竞选总统时曾承诺对古巴采取强硬立场,而第二份文件则表明猪湾入侵失败给肯尼迪政府带来了多么棘手的问题。接下来,向学生提供阿纳托利·多勃雷宁回忆录的节选(资料8.8),其中指出,由于罗伯特·肯尼迪怀有总统抱负,他不能在古巴或共产主义问题上表现软弱。图表组织工具(工具8.1)将帮助学生梳理思路。

Provide students with transcript excerpts of a 1960 presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (Source 8.6) and a 1961 top-secret memo from Richard Goodwin to President Kennedy (Source 8.7). The first document provides evidence that Kennedy had promised to be tough on Cuba when running for president, while the second indicates how problematic the failed Bay of Pigs invasion was for the Kennedy Administration. Next, provide students with the excerpt from Anatoly Dobrynin’s memoir (Source 8.8), which indicates that because Robert Kennedy had presidential ambitions, he could not afford to look soft on Cuba or Communism. The graphic organizer (Tool 8.1) will help students keep track of their thinking.

在留出时间讨论这些文件的重要性及其意义之后,请学生单独或分组完成作业。可以考虑布置一篇论文,让学生解释肯尼迪政府为何向美国公众隐瞒与苏联的谈判。鼓励学生引用并解释相关文件摘录,以佐证他们的结论。

After allowing time to discuss the importance of these documents and what they indicate, ask the students to work individually or in groups. Consider giving students an essay assignment to explain why the Kennedy Administration concealed their negotiations with the Soviets from the American public. Encourage students to include and explain excerpts from the documents that led them to their conclusions.

图像


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 将史料和历史事件置于特定语境中
  • Contextualizing sources and historical events
  • 根据资料构建对过去事件的解释
  • Building an explanation of a past event based on sources

情景三(1小时课程)。当你站在对方的角度思考问题时,过去会是什么样子?本情景使用一本苏联教科书,帮助学生理解视角,并练习精读。

Scenario 3 (1 Hour Lesson). What does the past look like when you’re standing in the other guy’s shoes? This scenario uses a Soviet textbook to help students understand perspective and also to give them practice in close reading.


CCSS

#4

CCSS

#4


向学生提供其他国家教科书中关于古巴导弹危机的节选(工具 8.2)。这些节选可以帮助学生练习精读,并提高他们对历史叙事语言的敏感度。在第一段节选(摘自一本古巴教科书)中,“雇佣兵”一词的使用会提醒细心的读者该书的立场。然而,学生可能无法理解其中的含义,或者不知道“雇佣兵”的具体意思。即使他们错过了这条线索,下一句中的“敌对的”一词也应该能让他们有所领悟。在第二段节选(摘自一本苏联教科书)中,第一句中的形容词“严重的”提醒读者,这段描述不太可能出自美国教科书。然而,仅凭这一线索并不能得出结论,直到接下来的句子衔接起来:该书解释说,正是美国的一系列行动引发了这场冲突,而苏联方面似乎并没有挑衅。

Provide students with excerpts from other nations’ textbooks and how they describe the Cuban Missile Crisis (Tool 8.2). These excerpts give students practice in close reading and honing their sensitivity to the language of historical narrative. In the first excerpt, from a Cuban textbook, use of the word “mercenary” will alert an attentive reader to the book’s stance. Students, however, may not grasp the inference or know what “mercenary” means. Even if they miss this clue, the word “hostile” in the next sentence should tip them off. In the second excerpt, from a Soviet book, the adjective “severe” in the first sentence alerts the reader that this description is not likely from a U.S. textbook. However, this clue alone does not settle the matter until subsequent sentences fall into place: The book explains it was a sequence of American actions that set off the conflict, with seemingly no provocation from the Soviet side.


此场景下需要掌握的技能清单

Targeted list of skills in this scenario


  • 透视识别
  • Perspective recognition
  • 细读
  • Close reading

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源8.1:摘自十三修改

SOURCE 8.1: EXCERPT FROM THIRTEEN DAYS (MODIFIED)


注:罗伯特·肯尼迪是约翰·肯尼迪总统的弟弟,1962 年担任美国司法部长。在这篇日记摘录中,他写到了他与苏联大使多勃雷宁就古巴导弹问题进行的谈判。

Note: Robert Kennedy was the brother of President John Kennedy and Attorney General of the United States in 1962. In this diary excerpt, he writes about his negotiations with Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin regarding the missiles in Cuba.

我大约晚上7点15分给多勃雷宁大使打电话,请他来司法部。我们7点45分在我的办公室见面。我首先告诉他,我们知道古巴导弹基地的建设工作仍在继续,而且最近几天速度加快……

I telephoned Ambassador Dobrynin about 7:15 P.M. and asked him to come to the Department of Justice. We met in my office at 7:45. I told him first that we knew that work was continuing on the missile bases in Cuba and that in the last few days it had been expedited….

我们必须确保他们在明天之前承诺撤走这些军事基地。我不是在给他们下最后通牒,而是在陈述事实。他应该明白,如果他们不撤走这些基地,我们就会撤走。肯尼迪总统非常尊重大使的国家及其人民的勇气。或许他的国家会觉得有必要采取报复行动;但在此之前,不仅会有美国人丧生,也会有俄罗斯人丧生。

We had to have a commitment by tomorrow that those bases would be removed. I was not giving them an ultimatum but a statement of fact. He should understand that if they did not remove those bases, we would remove them. President Kennedy had great respect for the Ambassador’s country and the courage of its people. Perhaps his country might feel it necessary to take retaliatory action; but before that was over, there would be not only dead Americans but dead Russians as well.

他问我美国提出了什么方案,我告诉他肯尼迪总统刚刚致函赫鲁晓夫。他提出了我们从土耳其撤走导弹的问题。我说,在这种威胁或压力下,不可能达成任何交换条件或协议,归根结底,这必须由北约来决定。不过,我又说,肯尼迪总统长期以来一直渴望从意大利和土耳其撤走这些导弹。他之前就下令撤走,我们认为,这场危机结束后不久,这些导​​弹就会被撤走。

He asked me what offer the United States was making, and I told him of the letter that President Kennedy had just transmitted to Khrushchev. He raised the question of our removing the missiles from Turkey. I said that there could be no quid pro quo or any arrangement made under this kind of threat or pressure and that in the last analysis this was a decision that would have to be made by NATO. However, I said, President Kennedy had been anxious to remove those missiles from Italy and Turkey for a long period of time. He had ordered their removal some time ago, and it was our judgment that, within a short time after this crisis was over, those missiles would be gone.

我说,肯尼迪总统希望我们两国保持和平关系。他希望解决我们在欧洲和东南亚面临的问题。他希望在核武器控制方面取得进展。然而,只有危机过去之后,我们才能在这些问题上取得进展。时间紧迫。我们只剩下几个小时了——我们需要苏联立即给我们答复。我说,我们必须在第二天就得到答复。

I said President Kennedy wished to have peaceful relations between our two countries. He wished to resolve the problems that confronted us in Europe and Southeast Asia. He wished to move forward on the control of nuclear weapons. However, we could make progress on these matters only when the crisis was behind us. Time was running out. We had only a few more hours—we needed an answer immediately from the Soviet Union. I said we must have it the next day.


资料来源:罗伯特·F·肯尼迪,《十三天:古巴导弹危机回忆录》(纽约:新美国图书馆,1969 年),第 107-109 页。

Source: Robert F. Kennedy, Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York: New American Library, 1969), 107–109.


词库

WORD BANK


加快——迅速处理

expedited—speeded up, dealt with quickly

最后通牒——最终要求

ultimatum—a final demand

报复性的——旨在反击他人

retaliatory—designed to hurt someone back

交换条件——以某种方式交换而来的事情

quid pro quo—something done in exchange


资料来源8.2 A罗伯特·肯尼迪迪安·拉斯克备忘录节选修改

SOURCE 8.2A: EXCERPT FROM ROBERT KENNEDY’S MEMO TO DEAN RUSK (MODIFIED)


注:在这份正式备忘录中,司法部长罗伯特·肯尼迪向国防部长迪安·腊斯克汇报了他与苏联大使的会面情况。

Note: In this official memo, Attorney General Robert Kennedy reports to Secretary of Defense Dean Rusk about his meeting with the Soviet Ambassador.

应腊斯克部长的要求,我于10月27日星期六晚上7点15分左右致电多勃雷宁大使。我问他是否愿意在8点45分到司法部来。我们在我的办公室见面……他问我……我们提出的条件是什么。我说,一封信函……已经送达苏联大使馆,信中指出……导弹基地应该被拆除,所有进攻性武器都应该从古巴撤走。作为交换,如果古巴、卡斯特罗和共产党停止他们的颠覆活动……我们将同意维持和平……并且不允许从美国领土入侵。

At the request of Secretary Rusk, I telephoned Ambassador Dobrynin at approximately 7:15 p.m. on Saturday October 27th. I asked him if he would come to the Justice Department at quarter of eight. We met in my office…. He asked me … what offer we were making. I said a letter had … been transmitted to the Soviet Embassy which stated … that the missile bases should be dismantled and all offensive weapons should be removed from Cuba. In return, if Cuba and Castro and the Communists ended their subversive activities … we would agree to keep peace … and not permit an invasion from American soil.

他接着问我关于赫鲁晓夫提出的另一项从土耳其撤走导弹的提议。我回答说,这不可能有任何交换条件——这种协议根本不可能达成……我按照你的指示重申,任何形式的协议都不可能达成,任何旨在缓和世界其他地区紧张局势的措施,很大程度上取决于苏联和赫鲁晓夫先生是否立即在古巴采取行动。

He then asked me about Khrushchev’s other proposal dealing with the removal of the missiles from Turkey. I replied that there could be no quid pro quo—no deal of this kind could be made…. Per your instructions I repeated that there could be no deal of any kind and that any steps toward easing tensions in other part of the world largely depended on the Soviet Union and Mr. Khrushchev taking action in Cuba and taking it immediately.


资料来源:1962 年 10 月 30 日,司法部长罗伯特·肯尼迪致国防部长迪安·腊斯克的绝密备忘录。

Source: Top-secret memo from Robert Kennedy, Attorney General, to Secretary of Defense Dean Rusk, October 30, 1962.


词库

WORD BANK


已发送——已发送

transmitted—sent

拆解——卸下

dismantled—taken apart

颠覆性的——旨在伤害或推翻政府

subversive—intended to hurt or overthrow the government

交换条件——以某种方式交换而来的事情

quid pro quo—something done in exchange


来源8.2 B:罗伯特·肯尼迪迪安·拉斯克顶级秘密备忘录原件

SOURCE 8.2B: TOP-SECRET MEMO FROM ROBERT KENNEDY TO DEAN RUSK (ORIGINAL)


图像

图像


来源:可访问http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621030%20Memorandum%20for%20Sec.%20of%20State.pdf

Source: Available at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621030%20Memorandum%20for%20Sec.%20of%20State.pdf

 

 

资料来源8.3 赫鲁晓夫回忆

SOURCE 8.3: KHRUSHCHEV REMEMBERS


注:尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫是古巴导弹危机期间的苏联领导人。在他的回忆录中,他回忆了肯尼迪总统在危机期间对他说的话。

Note: Nikita Khrushchev was the leader of the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In his memoir, he recalls what President Kennedy told him during the crisis.

肯尼迪总统表示,作为撤走美国导弹的交换条件,他将从土耳其和意大利撤走美国导弹。

President Kennedy said that in exchange for the withdrawal of our missiles, he would remove American missiles from Turkey and Italy.


来源:摘自《赫鲁晓夫回忆录:最后的遗嘱》。导言、评注和注释由爱德华·克兰克肖撰写,斯特罗布·塔尔博特翻译和编辑(波士顿:利特尔·布朗出版社,1974 年),第 512 页。

Source: Excerpt from Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament. Introduction, commentary, and notes by Edward Crankshaw, trans. and ed. by Strobe Talbott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974), 512.

 

 

来源8.4多布林电缆莫斯科(修改

SOURCE 8.4: DOBRYNIN CABLE TO MOSCOW (MODIFIED)


注:古巴导弹危机期间,阿纳托利·多勃雷宁是苏联驻美国大使。在这里,他回忆了与美国司法部长罗伯特·肯尼迪的谈判。

Note: During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Anatoly Dobrynin was the Soviet Ambassador to the United States. Here, he recalls his negotiations with U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

“那土耳其呢?”我问罗伯特·肯尼迪。

“And what about Turkey?” I asked R. Kennedy.

“如果这是我之前提到的那项法规实施的唯一障碍,那么总统认为解决这个问题并没有什么不可克服的困难,”R·肯尼迪回答说。“总统面临的最大困难是公众对土耳其问题的讨论……”

“If that is the only obstacle to achieving the regulation I mentioned earlier, then the president doesn’t see any insurmountable difficulties in resolving this issue,” replied R. Kennedy. “The greatest difficulty for the president is the public discussion of the issue of Turkey….

“然而,肯尼迪总统也准备就此问题与赫鲁晓夫总理达成一致。我认为,要从土耳其撤出这些基地,”R·肯尼迪说,“我们需要4到5个月的时间。考虑到北约框架内的现有程序,这是美国政府完成这项工作所需的最短时间关于整个土耳其问题,”R·肯尼迪补充道,“如果赫鲁晓夫总理同意我的观点,我们可以继续交换意见……但是,总统不能就此公开谈论土耳其问题。”……R·肯尼迪随后警告说,他对土耳其的评论极其机密;除了他和他的兄弟之外,华盛顿只有两三个人知道此事。

“However, President Kennedy is ready to come to agree on that question with N.S. Khrushchev, too. I think that in order to withdraw these bases from Turkey,” R. Kennedy said, “we need 4–5 months. This is the minimal amount of time necessary for the U.S. government to do this, taking into account the procedures that exist within the NATO framework. On the whole Turkey issue,” R. Kennedy added, “if Premier N.S. Khrushchev agrees with what I’ve said, we can continue to exchange opinions…. However, the president can’t say anything public in this regard about Turkey.” … R. Kennedy then warned that his comments about Turkey are extremely confidential; besides him and his brother, only 2–3 people know about it in Washington.

……与我见面后,他立即去见了总统,正如罗伯特·肯尼迪所说,他现在几乎所有时间都和总统在一起。

… After meeting with me he immediately went to see the president, with whom, as R. Kennedy said, he spends almost all his time now.


资料来源:阿纳托利·多勃雷宁,摘自俄罗斯外交部档案,译自NHK提供的副本,见理查德·内德·莱博和珍妮丝·格罗斯·斯坦,《我们都输掉了冷战》(普林斯顿,新泽西州:普林斯顿大学出版社,1994年),附录,第523-526页,略有修订。http ://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027%20Dobrynin%20Cable%20to%20USSR.pdf

Source: Anatoly Dobrynin, from Russian Foreign Ministry archives, translation from copy provided by NHK, in Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein, We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), Appendix, 523–526, with minor revisions. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027%20Dobrynin%20Cable%20to%20USSR.pdf


词库

WORD BANK


无法克服的——无法解决的

insurmountable—unable to be solved

北约——北大西洋公约组织

NATO—North Atlantic Treaty Organization


来源8.5:西奥多·奥伦森修改

SOURCE 8.5: THEODORE SORENSON (MODIFIED)


注:西奥多·索伦森是罗伯特·肯尼迪著作《十三天》的编辑。该书公开了肯尼迪在古巴导弹危机期间的日记。索伦森在此承认,在日记出版前,他删除了其中的一些绝密信息。

Note: Theodore Sorenson was the editor of Robert Kennedy’s book Thirteen Days. The book made Kennedy’s diary of the Cuban Missile Crisis public. Here, Sorenson admits that he took top-secret information out of the diary before it was published.

肯尼迪总统意识到,要想让赫鲁晓夫主席从古巴撤走导弹,无疑对他大有帮助,因为他可以同时向主席团的同僚们保证 “我们已经得到保证,导弹将从土耳其撤出。” 因此,在执行委员会会议(1962年10月27日晚)之后,正如你们几乎都知道的那样,一小群人在肯尼迪总统的办公室会面,他指示罗伯特·肯尼迪——在国务卿迪安·腊斯克的建议下——将信交给多勃雷宁大使,转交给赫鲁晓夫主席,但同时口头补充信中没有的内容:导弹将从土耳其撤出。

The president [Kennedy] recognized that, for Chairman Khrushchev to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, it would be undoubtedly helpful to him if he could say at the same time to his colleagues on the Presidium, “And we have been assured that the missiles will be coming out of Turkey.” And so, after the ExComm meeting [on the evening of 27 October 1962], as I’m sure almost all of you know, a small group met in President Kennedy’s office, and he instructed Robert Kennedy—at the suggestion of Secretary of State [Dean] Rusk—to deliver the letter to Ambassador Dobrynin for referral to Chairman Khrushchev, but to add orally what was not in the letter: that the missiles would come out of Turkey.

多勃雷宁大使认为罗伯特·肯尼迪的书没有充分阐明土耳其导弹“交易”是解决危机的一部分。在此,我要向美方同事以及在场的各位坦白一件事。我曾是罗伯特·肯尼迪那本书的编辑。事实上,那本书是那十三天的日记。他的日记非常明确地表明,这是交易的一部分;但当时,即使在美方,除了我们六个参加那次会议的人之外,这件事也仍然是个秘密。因此,我主动将日记中的相关内容删掉了,这也是为什么大使说日记不如他的谈话那样直白有一定道理的原因。

Ambassador Dobrynin felt that Robert Kennedy’s book did not adequately express that the “deal” on the Turkish missiles was part of the resolution of the crisis. And here I have a confession to make to my colleagues on the American side, as well as to others who are present. I was the editor of Robert Kennedy’s book. It was, in fact, a diary of those thirteen days. And his diary was very explicit that this was part of the deal; but at that time it was still a secret even on the American side, except for the six of us who had been present at that meeting. So I took it upon myself to edit that out of his diaries, and that is why the Ambassador is somewhat justified in saying that the diaries are not as explicit as his conversation.


来源:西奥多·索伦森,《回到边缘: 1989 年 1 月 27 日至 28 日莫斯科古巴导弹危机会议记录》,布鲁斯·J·艾伦、詹姆斯·G·布莱特和大卫·A·韦尔奇编辑(马里兰州兰哈姆:美国大学出版社,1992 年),第 92-93 页。

Source: Theodore Sorensen, in Back to the Brink: Proceedings of the Moscow Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis, January 27–28, 1989, eds., Bruce J. Allyn, James G. Blight, and David A. Welch (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992), 92–93.


词库

WORD BANK


主席团——苏联政府高级成员

Presidium—high-ranking members of the Soviet government

执行委员会——肯尼迪总统最亲密的顾问

ExComm—President Kennedy’s closest advisors

明确的——清晰表述

explicit—clearly stated


来源8.6肯尼迪/尼克松辩论(修改

SOURCE 8.6: KENNEDY/NIXON DEBATES (MODIFIED)


注:1960年,约翰·F·肯尼迪和理查德·尼克松竞选总统。当时肯尼迪是参议员,尼克松是副总统。以下节选自选举前的一场辩论,两人在辩论中讨论了1960年古巴的地位。

Note: In 1960, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon ran for president. Kennedy was a senator and Nixon was Vice President at the time. What follows is an excerpt from a debate prior to the election in which the men discuss the status of Cuba in 1960.

保罗·尼文:尼克松副总统先生,肯尼迪参议员昨晚表示,艾森豪威尔/尼克松政府必须为古巴落入共产党之手承担责任。您能否将这一说法与您之前竞选期间关于杜鲁门政府应对中国落入共产党之手负责的言论进行比较?

PAUL NIVEN: Mr. Vice President [Nixon], Senator Kennedy said last night that the [Eisenhower/Nixon] Administration must take responsibility for the loss of Cuba [to Communist control]. Would you compare the validity of that statement with the validity of your own statements in previous campaigns that the Truman Administration was responsible for the loss of China to the Communists?

理查德·尼克松:肯尼迪参议员对我——或者说他所谓的——在古巴事件中所扮演的角色提出了非常强烈的批评……现在,关于古巴,我要明确一点。毫无疑问,我们将捍卫我们在那里的权利。毫无疑问,如果关塔那摩遭到攻击,我们将予以保卫。同样毫无疑问的是,古巴的自由人民——那些渴望自由的人民——将得到支持,他们必将获得自由。不,古巴没有沦陷,我认为肯尼迪参议员这种悲观的言论对局势没有任何帮助。

RICHARD NIXON: Senator Kennedy has made some very strong criticisms of my part—or alleged part—in what has happened in Cuba…. Now with regard to Cuba, let me make one thing clear. There isn’t any question but that we will defend our rights there. There isn’t any question but that we will defend Guantanamo if it’s attacked. There also isn’t any question but that the free people of Cuba—the people who want to be free—are going to be supported and that they will attain their freedom. No, Cuba is not lost, and I don’t think this kind of defeatist talk by Senator Kennedy helps the situation one bit.

弗兰克·麦基:肯尼迪参议员,您能否发表一下评论?

FRANK McGEE: Senator Kennedy, would you care to comment?

肯尼迪先生:首先,我从未暗示过古巴已经沦陷,只是目前如此。昨晚的演讲中,我表示我认为古巴终有一天会重获自由。我对本届政府政策的批评在于,本届政府未能利用其巨大的影响力说服古巴政府举行自由选举,尤其是在1957年和1958年。我希望古巴有朝一日能够崛起;但如果我们继续沿用近年来对古巴的政策,我认为它不会崛起。

MR. KENNEDY: In the first place I’ve never suggested that Cuba was lost except for the present. In my speech last night I indicated that I thought that Cuba one day again would be free. Where I’ve been critical of the Administration’s policy [is in] the failure of the Administration to use its great influence to persuade the Cuban government to hold free elections, particularly in 1957 and 1958. I hope some day [Cuba] will rise; but I don’t think it will rise if we continue the same policies toward Cuba that we did in recent years.


资料来源:1960年10月7日肯尼迪-尼克松第二次总统辩论的文字记录,可访问http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-7-1960-debate-transcript获取。

Source: Transcript of the Second Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate, October 7, 1960, available at http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-7-1960-debate-transcript


词库

WORD BANK


关塔那摩——位于古巴的美国军事基地

Guantanamo—American military base in Cuba

达到——获得或完成

attain—to get or to accomplish

失败主义——消极的,反映失败

defeatist—negative, reflecting defeat


资料来源8.7:总统备忘录(修订版)

SOURCE 8.7: MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT (MODIFIED)


注:在这份提交给肯尼迪总统的绝密备忘录中,理查德·古德温报告了他1961年与切·格瓦拉的会面。格瓦拉在帮助古巴共产党夺取政权的过程中发挥了重要作用。

Note: In this top-secret memo to President Kennedy, Richard Goodwin reports on his 1961 meeting with Che Guevara. Guevara played a major role in helping the Communists come to power in Cuba.

绝密

TOP SECRET

致总统的备忘录

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

主题:与埃内斯托·切·格瓦拉司令的对话

Subject: Conversation with Commandante Ernesto [Che]

古巴的格瓦拉

Guevara of Cuba

这次谈话发生在8月17日凌晨2点。巴西和阿根廷代表团的几位成员曾努力安排我和切·格瓦拉会面。显然,这是在切·格瓦拉的默许下进行的,即便不是他主动要求的……

The conversation took place the evening of August 17 at 2 A.M. Several members of the Brazilian and Argentine delegations had made efforts … to arrange a meeting between me and Che. This was obviously done with Che’s approval, if not his urging….

他接着说,他们不想和美国达成谅解,因为他们知道那是不可能的。他们想要的是一份临时协议……他认为我们应该提出这样的方案,因为我们需要考虑公众舆论,而他则可以接受任何方案,无需顾虑公众舆论……

He then said that they didn’t want an understanding with the U.S., because they knew that was impossible. They would like a [temporary agreement]…. He thought we should put forth such a formula because we had public opinion to worry about whereas he could accept anything without worrying about public opinion….

然后他接着说,他非常感谢我们对猪湾入侵的帮助——这对他们来说是一次伟大的政治胜利——使他们得以巩固——并将他们从一个受委屈的小国转变为一个平等的国家。

He then went on to say that he wanted to thank us very much for the [Bay of Pigs] invasion—that it had been a great political victory for them—enabled them to consolidate—and transformed them from an aggrieved little country to an equal.


资料来源:理查德·古德温,《致校长备忘录》,1961年8月22日,http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/19610822.pdf

Source: Richard Goodwin, “Memorandum for the President,” August 22, 1961, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/19610822.pdf

 

 

资料来源8.8:多·奥勃宁回忆录

SOURCE 8.8: DOBRYNIN MEMOIR


注:阿纳托利·多勃雷宁在此回忆了他在古巴导弹危机期间与罗伯特·肯尼迪的谈判。

Note: Here, Anatoly Dobrynin recalls his negotiations with Robert Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

第二天,也就是10月30日,罗伯特·肯尼迪告诉我,总统确认了关闭美国在土耳其导弹基地的协议。他说,虽然我们可以确信会采取适当措施,但不会公开将他的决定与古巴导弹危机联系起来。他还说,白宫不准备正式签署这项协议,即使是通过严格保密的信函也不行,而且美方也不愿就如此敏感的问题进行任何沟通。罗伯特·肯尼迪私下补充说,将来有一天——谁知道呢?——他可能会竞选总统,如果这项关于土耳其导弹基地的秘密协议泄露出去,他的竞选前景可能会受到影响。

The next day, October 30, Robert Kennedy informed me that the president confirmed the accord on closing American missile bases in Turkey, and that while we could be sure that the appropriate steps would be taken, no connection was to be drawn in public between his decision and the events surrounding Cuba. He said that the White House was not prepared to formalize the accord, even by means of strictly confidential letters, and that the American side preferred not to engage in any correspondence on so sensitive an issue. Very privately, Robert Kennedy added that some day—who knows?—he might run for president, and his prospects could be damaged if this secret deal about the missiles in Turkey were to come out.

我把肯尼迪的答复转达给了莫斯科。两天后,我告诉罗伯特·肯尼迪,赫鲁晓夫同意了这些考虑,并且毫不怀疑总统会信守承诺……

I relayed the Kennedy reply to Moscow. Two days later, I told Robert Kennedy that Khrushchev agreed to those considerations and had no doubt that the president would keep his word….

赫鲁晓夫未能坚持要求肯尼迪公开承诺,为此付出了惨痛的代价。由于无人知晓这项秘密协议,肯尼迪被誉为这场危机的最大赢家。赫鲁晓夫被迫屈辱地从古巴撤走了导弹,却没有获得任何明显的利益。

Khrushchev’s failure to insist on a public pledge by Kennedy cost him dearly. Kennedy was proclaimed the big winner in the crisis because no one knew about the secret deal. Khrushchev had been humiliated into withdrawing our missiles from Cuba with no obvious gain.


来源:摘自阿纳托利·多勃雷宁,《密语:莫斯科大使与美国六位冷战总统(1962-1986)》(纽约:时代图书,1995 年),第 90 页。

Source: Excerpt from Anatoly Dobrynin, In Confidence: Moscow’s Ambassador to America’s Six Cold War Presidents (1962–1986) (New York: Times Books, 1995), 90.

 

 

工具8.1 :场景2图形组织

TOOL 8.1: GRAPHIC ORGANIZER FOR SCENARIO 2

 

 

文件里写了什么?

What does the document say?

这能解释美国为何想要隐瞒真相吗?

What light does it shed on why the U.S. might have wanted to conceal the truth?

资料来源 8.6:肯尼迪/尼克松辩论

Source 8.6: Kennedy/Nixon debates

 

 

 

 

资料来源 8.7:古德温致肯尼迪总统的备忘录

Source 8.7: Goodwin memo to President Kennedy

 

 

 

 

资料来源 8.8:多勃雷宁回忆录

Source 8.8: Dobrynin memoir

 

 

 

 

 

 

工具8.2 教科书摘录

TOOL 8.2: TEXTBOOK EXCERPTS



摘录1

Excerpt 1

猪湾事件中雇佣军旅的失败使美国认为,镇压古巴革命的唯一途径就是直接军事干预。美国立即着手准备……作为其敌对计划的一部分,美国考虑在关塔那摩海军基地发动自导自演的侵略行动,以便将责任推卸给古巴,并为入侵该岛提供借口。为此,美国不断从基地一侧挑衅;海军陆战队员向古巴领土开火,有时持续数小时之久。

The defeat of the mercenary Brigade at the Bay of Pigs made the U.S. think that the only way of crashing the Cuban Revolution was through a direct military intervention. The U.S. immediately embarked on its preparation…. As part of their hostile plans, the U.S. considered a self-inflicted aggression in connection with the Guantanamo Naval Base that would allow them to blame Cuba and provide a pretext for invading the island. With that aim, constant provocations took place from the U.S. side of the base; Marines shooting toward Cuban territory, sometimes for several hours.


这段摘录出自哪本教科书?

Does this excerpt come from a textbook from

  1. 俄罗斯
  2. Russia
  3. 古巴
  4. Cuba
  5. 美国
  6. United States
  7. 英国
  8. Great Britain

哪些词语和短语能让你联想到这段文字的出处?

What words and phrases give you clues about where this except is from?


摘录2

Excerpt 2

1960年,美国对古巴实施了严厉的经济制裁,拒绝向古巴供应石油,并大幅削减了对古巴最大、最重要的出口产品——糖的采购。迫于无奈,古巴政府于1961年夏季将石油工业、制糖厂以及其他美国在古巴拥有的企业收归国有。作为回应,美国对古巴实施了经济封锁,停止贸易并禁止美国公民赴古巴旅游。1960年9月,美国国会通过一项法案,禁止向任何在经济或军事上援助古巴的国家提供美国对外援助……在这种危急情况下,苏联和其他共产主义国家介入,购买古巴的糖,并向古巴提供石油和其他必需品。

In 1960 the United States took severe economic sanctions against Cuba, refusing to supply oil to the island, and cutting back on the purchases of sugar, Cuba’s largest and most important export. Forced to make a choice, the Cuban government nationalized the oil industry, sugar processing plants, and other American-owned businesses in Cuba in the summer of 1961. In response, the United States set up an economic blockade of Cuba, stopping trade and prohibiting American tourism to the island. In September 1960, Congress passed a law denying American foreign aid to any nation that assisted Cuba economically or militarily…. In this dire situation the Soviet Union and other Communist nations stepped in to purchase Cuban sugar and provide the country with oil and other essential goods.


这段摘录出自哪本教科书?

Does this excerpt come from a textbook from

  1. 俄罗斯
  2. Russia
  3. 古巴
  4. Cuba
  5. 美国
  6. United States
  7. 英国
  8. Great Britain

哪些词语和短语能让你联想到这段文字的出处?

What words and phrases give you clues about where this except is from?


资料来源:改编自美国国家历史教育信息中心(由乔治·梅森大学、斯坦福大学教育学院和美国历史学会合作成立,并由美国教育部资助)提供的一项活动,网址为http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/quiz/24233,经许可使用。教科书摘录自达娜·林德曼和凯尔·沃德合著的《历史课:世界各地的教科书如何描绘美国历史》(纽约:新出版社,2004年),第297-306页。

Source: Adapted from an activity provided by the National History Education Clearinghouse, a partnership of George Mason University, the Stanford School of Education, and the American Historical Association, and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/quiz/24233, used by permission. Textbook excerpts from Dana Lindaman and Kyle Ward, History Lessons: How Textbooks from Around the World Portray U.S. History (New York: The New Press, 2004), 297–306.

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/

该国家安全档案馆由乔治·华盛顿大学管理,馆藏包括解密文件、音频片段、照片和危机大事记。

Housed by George Washington University, this National Security Archive includes declassified documents, audio clips, photographs, and a chronology of the crisis.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/msc_cubamenu.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/msc_cubamenu.asp

阿瓦隆项目由耶鲁大学管理,收藏了与古巴导弹危机相关的法律和外交文件,其中包括会议备忘录、电话记录以及政府官员之间的电报。

Housed by Yale University, the Avalon Project has a collection of legal and diplomatic documents related to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Memoranda from meetings and phone conversations as well as telegrams between government officials are included.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cuba.htm

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cuba.htm

由曼荷莲学院国际政治学教授文森特·费拉罗收藏的文献资料,均与美国外交政策相关。其中一份专门收藏古巴导弹危机相关文献,涵盖了包括菲德尔·卡斯特罗和切·格瓦拉在内的各方观点。

Housed by Mt. Holyoke College, Professor of International Politics Vincent Ferraro maintains collections of documents pertaining to American foreign policy. One focuses exclusively on the Cuban Missile Crisis and includes documents from a range of perspectives, including Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OOGA-xrLyg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OOGA-xrLyg&feature=related

观看肯尼迪于 1962 年 10 月 22 日向全国发表的电视讲话。肯尼迪在讲话中概述了当时古巴局势以及美国和苏联之间的关系。

Watch Kennedy’s televised speech to the nation on October 22, 1962. Here Kennedy outlines what had been happening to date in Cuba and between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/Cuban+Missile+Crisis.htm

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/Cuban+Missile+Crisis.htm

位于马萨诸塞州的肯尼迪总统图书馆和博物馆也收藏了大量与古巴导弹危机相关的文献和资料,包括电视和广播录音。

The Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Massachusetts also contains a collection of documents and resources devoted to the Cuban Missile Crisis, including television and radio recordings.

 

 


附录

APPENDIX


英语/语言艺术、历史/社会研究、科学和技术学科的共同核心州立标准

Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects

第 61 页,《历史/社会研究读写能力阅读标准(6-12 年级)》

Page 61, Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies 6–12

以下标准从六年级开始;K-5年级历史/社会研究、科学和技术学科的阅读标准已融入K-5年级阅读标准中。大学和职业准备核心标准与高中读写能力标准相辅相成,共同界定大学和职业准备的预期目标——前者提供宽泛的标准,后者提供更具体的标准。

The standards below begin at grade 6; standards for K–5 reading in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects are integrated into the K–5 Reading standards. The CCR anchor standards and high school standards in literacy work in tandem to define college and career readiness expectations—the former providing broad standards, the latter providing additional specificity.

图像

笔记

Notes

介绍

Introduction

1. 《纽约时报》,1921 年 4 月 4 日。

1. The New York Times, April 4, 1921.

2.请参阅 NAEP 网站上与 Pr​​osser 相关的多项选择题,网址为 http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ITMRLS/itemdisplay.asp。Gitlow诉纽约州一案的参考文献出现在《美国国家教育进步评估历史框架》(华盛顿特区:2006 年)第 29 页。国家评估管理委员会,教育部。

2. See the multiple-choice item relating to Prosser on the NAEP website, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ITMRLS/itemdisplay.asp. The reference to Gitlow v. State of New York appears on page 29 of the United States History Framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Washington, D.C.: 2006). National Assessment Governing Board, Department of Education.

3.全国州长协会最佳实践中心,州首席教育官员理事会,《共同核心州立标准(历史/社会研究、科学和技术学科的读写能力)》(华盛顿特区:全国州长协会,2010 年)。

3. National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standards (Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects). (Washington, D.C.: National Governors’ Association, 2010).

4.同上,第 60 页。

4. Ibid., 60.

5. Gina Biancarosa 和 Catherine E. Snow,《阅读的未来:中学和高中读写能力行动与研究的愿景》(纽约:卡内基公司,2004 年),第 12 页。

5. Gina Biancarosa and Catherine E. Snow, Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy (New York: Carnegie Corporation, 2004), 12.

6.参见 Reed Stevens、Sam Wineburg、Leslie Herrenkohl 和 Philip Bell,“学校科目的比较理解:过去、现在和未来”,《教育研究评论》 (2005),75 (2),125–157。

6. See Reed Stevens, Sam Wineburg, Leslie Herrenkohl, and Philip Bell, “Comparative Understanding of School Subjects: Past, Present, and Future,” Review of Research in Education (2005), 75(2), 125–157.

7.参见 Avishag Reisman,“‘基于文献的课程’:将学科探究引入高中历史课堂,帮助青少年克服阅读困难”,《课程研究杂志》(2011),44(2),233-264;Avishag Reisman,“像历史学家一样阅读:城市课堂中的基于文献的历史课程干预”,《认知与教学》 (2012),30(1),86-112。

7. See Avishag Reisman, “The ‘Document-Based Lesson’: Bringing Disciplinary Inquiry Into High School History Classrooms with Adolescent Struggling Readings,” Journal of Curriculum Studies (2011), 44(2), 233–264; Avishag Reisman, “Reading Like a Historian: A Document-Based History Curriculum Intervention in an Urban Classroom,” Cognition and Instruction (2012), 30(1), 86–112.

8.参见 Diane Ravitch 的《语言警察:压力集团如何限制学生学习的内容》(2003 年)和 Tamim Ansary 的《混乱机器:教科书编辑的自白》,Edutopia(2008 年),网址为http://www.edutopia.org/muddle-machine

8. See Diane Ravitch, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (2003), and Tamim Ansary, “The muddle machine: Confessions of a textbook editor,” Edutopia (2008), available at http://www.edutopia.org/muddle-machine.

第一章

Chapter 1

1. David A. Price,《詹姆斯敦的爱与恨:约翰·史密斯、波卡洪塔斯和一个新国家的心脏》(纽约:克诺夫出版社,2003 年)。

1. David A. Price, Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation (New York: Knopf, 2003).

2.同上,第 59 页。

2. Ibid., 59.

3. Camilla Townsend,《波卡洪塔斯与波瓦坦困境》(纽约:Hill and Wang出版社,2004年),第52页。

3. Camilla Townsend, Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma (New York: Hill and Wang, 2004), 52.

4.约翰·史密斯,《约翰·史密斯船长1608年的真实记述》,载于《早期弗吉尼亚叙事集,1606-1625》,莱昂·加德纳·泰勒编(纽约:查尔斯·斯克里布纳之子出版社,1907年),第48页。在线影印版见www.americanjourneys.org/aj-074/

4. John Smith, “A True Relation by Captain John Smith 1608,” in Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606–1625, ed. Lyon Gardiner Tyler (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 48. Online facsimile edition at www.americanjourneys.org/aj-074/

5. Philip L. Barbour 编,《约翰·史密斯船长全集(1580–1631)》,第 2 卷(教堂山:北卡罗来纳大学出版社,1986 年),第 151 页。也可在线访问:http://www.virtualjamestown.org/firsthand.html

5. Philip L. Barbour, ed., The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580–1631), vol. 2 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 151. Also available online at http://www.virtualjamestown.org/firsthand.html

6. “波瓦坦”既是波卡洪塔斯父亲领导的部落的名称,也是酋长本人的常用名称。瓦胡苏纳科克或许才是这位印第安酋长更准确的名字。

6. “Powhatan” is the name commonly used for both the tribe led by Pocahontas’s father and the chief himself. Wahunsunacock may be a more accurate name for the Indian chief.

7.亨利·亚当斯,《约翰·史密斯船长》,《北美评论》104(214)(1867年1月),第1-30页。也可在线访问: http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi ?notisid=ABQ7578-0104&byte=93017179。亚当斯的文章是对查尔斯·迪恩编辑的史密斯《真实记述》和爱德华·玛丽亚·温菲尔德的《弗吉尼亚论述》的评论,迪恩在这两部著作中质疑了史密斯的诚实性,但亚当斯本人对史密斯的诚实性进行了全面的抨击。

7. Henry Adams, “Captain John Smith,” The North American Review 104 (214) (January 1867) 1–30. Also available online at http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ7578-0104&byte=93017179. Adams’s article is a review of Charles Deane’s editions of Smith’s True Relation and Edward Maria Wingfield’s A Discourse of Virginia in which he questioned Smith’s truthfulness, but it is Adams who does a full assault on the same.

8. Paul Lewis,《伟大的流氓:约翰·史密斯传》(纽约:David McKay 公司,1966 年)。

8. Paul Lewis, The Great Rogue: A Biography of John Smith (New York: David McKay Company, 1966).

9. JA Leo Lemay,《约翰·史密斯船长的美国梦》(夏洛茨维尔:弗吉尼亚大学出版社,1991 年)。另见 JA Leo Lemay,《波卡洪塔斯救了约翰·史密斯船长吗?》(雅典:佐治亚大学出版社,1992 年)。

9. J. A. Leo Lemay, The American Dream of Captain John Smith (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991). Also see J. A. Leo Lemay, Did Pocahontas Save Captain John Smith? (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1992).

10. Philip L. Barbour,《波卡洪塔斯和她的世界:美国第一个定居点的编年史,讲述了印第安人和英国人的故事——特别是约翰·史密斯船长、塞缪尔·阿加尔船长和约翰·罗尔夫船长的故事》(波士顿:霍顿·米夫林出版社,1970 年)。

10. Philip L. Barbour, Pocahontas and Her World: A Chronicle of America’s First Settlement in Which Is Related the Story of the Indians and the Englishmen—Particularly Captain John Smith, Captain Samuel Argall, and Master John Rolfe (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970).

11.这些话出自乔治·珀西之口,他是一位英国人,于1607年搭乘三艘船前往詹姆斯敦,最终接替史密斯成为殖民地的领袖。他在《关于弗吉尼亚发生的事件和事件的真实记录》(A True Relacyon of the Pcedinges and Ocurrentes of Momente wch have happenned in Virginia from the Tyme Sr Thomas GATES was shippwrackte uppon the BERMUDES ano 1609 until l my depture outt of the Country wch was in ano Dñi 1612)一书中写道:“乔治·珀西,1609-1612年间所经历的种种事件和事件。也可在线访问: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse ?id=J1063 , 264)。 ”

11. These words were used by George Percy, an Englishman who traveled on the trio of boats to Jamestown in 1607 and eventually succeeded Smith as leader of the colony. In A Trewe Relacyon of the Pcedeinges and Ocurrentes of Momente wch have hapned in Virginia from the Tyme Sr Thomas GATES was shippwrackte uppon the BERMUDES ano 1609 untill my depture outt of the Country wch was in ano Dñi 1612. (Called “A True Relation” by George Percy, 1609–1612). Also available online at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1063, 264).

12.参见一篇关于殖民时期、联邦时期以及……时期这些神话形象的起源和用途的研究。罗伯特·S·蒂尔顿,《波卡洪塔斯:美国叙事的演变》(英国剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,1994 年)中对战前时期进行了论述。关于学者们如何看待后来的故事版本,可参见弗雷德里克·W·格利奇的《博览会上的波卡洪塔斯:1907 年詹姆斯敦博览会上的身份塑造》,载《民族史》50(3)(2003 年夏季),第 419-445 页。

12. See one examination of the origins and uses of these mythic representations during the colonial, federalist, and antebellum periods in Robert S. Tilton, Pocahontas: The Evolution of an American Narrative (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994). For one example of how scholars look at representations of the story in later years, see Frederic W. Gleach, “Pocahontas at the Fair: Crafting Identities at the 1907 Jamestown Exposition,” Ethnohistory 50 (3) (Summer 2003), 419–445.

13. Townsend,《波卡洪塔斯与波瓦坦困境》;Helen Rountree,《波卡洪塔斯、波瓦坦、奥佩坎卡诺:詹姆斯敦改变的三位印第安人的生活》(夏洛茨维尔:弗吉尼亚大学出版社,2005 年)。

13. Townsend, Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma; Helen Rountree, Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough: Three Indian Lives Changed by Jamestown (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005).

14. Townsend,《波卡洪塔斯与波瓦坦困境》,第 56 页。

14. Townsend, Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma, 56.

15. E. Randolph Turner,“波瓦坦核心地区的美洲原住民史前互动”,《波瓦坦对外关系》 ,Helen Rountree 编辑(夏洛茨维尔:弗吉尼亚大学出版社,1993 年),第 76-93 页。

15. E. Randolph Turner, “Native American Protohistoric Interactions in the Powhatan Core Area,” Powhatan Foreign Relations, ed. Helen Rountree (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993), 76–93.

16. Louise Woodville,“揭开波瓦坦帝国的面纱” ,《人文:国家人文基金会杂志》,28(1)(2007 年 1 月/2 月),17-19。

16. Louise Woodville, “Uncovering Powhatan’s Empire,” Humanities: The Magazine of the National Endowment for the Humanities, 28 (1) (January/February 2007), 17–19.

17. Townsend,《波卡洪塔斯与波瓦坦困境》,第14页。

17. Townsend, Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma, 14.

18. Barbour,《波卡洪塔斯和她的世界》,第 4 页。

18. Barbour, Pocahontas and Her World, 4.

19. Helen C. Rountree,“波卡洪塔斯:成名的俘虏”,《筛子:美国原住民女性的生活》,Theda Perdue 编辑(牛津:牛津大学出版社,2001 年),第 27 页。

19. Helen C. Rountree, “Pocahontas: The Hostage Who Became Famous,” Sifters: Native American Women’s Lives, ed. Theda Perdue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 27.

20. David Lowenthal,“构建遗产”,《历史与记忆》,10(1)(1998 年春季)(http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/journals/history/ham10-1.html)。

20. David Lowenthal, “Fabricating Heritage,” History and Memory, 10 (1) (Spring, 1998) (http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/journals/history/ham10-1.html).

第二章

Chapter 2

1. Elias Phinney,《1775 年 4 月 19 日早晨列克星顿战役史》(波士顿:菲尔普斯和法纳姆印刷,1825 年);Ian MG Quimby,“杜立特列克星顿和康科德战役的版画”,温特图尔画集 4(1968 年),83-108 页。

1. Elias Phinney, History of the Battle at Lexington on the Morning of the 19th of April, 1775 (Boston: Printed by Phelps and Farnham, 1825); Ian M. G. Quimby, “The Doolittle Engravings of the Battle of Lexington and Concord,” Winterthur Portfolio 4 (1968), 83–108.

2. Ezra Ripley,《1775 年 4 月 19 日康科德战役史》(马萨诸塞州康科德:Herman Atwill,1832 年)。

2. Ezra Ripley, A History of the Fight at Concord on the 19th of April, 1775 (Concord, MA: Herman Atwill, 1832).

3.哈罗德·默多克,《1775 年 4 月 19 日》(波士顿:霍顿·米夫林出版社,1925 年),第 362 页。

3. Harold Murdock, The Nineteenth of April 1775 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1925), 362.

4.同上,第 363 页。

4. Ibid., 363.

5. Arthur B. Tourtellot,《列克星顿和康科德:美国革命战争的开始》(纽约:WW Norton & Co.,1959 年),第 135 页。

5. Arthur B. Tourtellot, Lexington and Concord: The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1959), 135.

6.纳撒尼尔·穆利肯等人的证词,载于克莱门特·索特尔所著《盖奇将军指挥下的国王军队的远征和蹂躏记》(纽约:纽约时报和阿诺出版社,1968 年)。

6. Deposition of Nathaniel Mulliken et al., in Clement Sawtell, A Narrative of the Excursion and Ravages of the King’s Troops under the Command of General Gage (New York: The New York Times and Arno Press, 1968).

7.约翰·巴克,《波士顿的英国人:约翰·巴克中尉的日记》(纽约:纽约时报和阿诺出版社,1969 年)。

7. John Barker, The British in Boston: The Diary of Lt. John Barker (New York: The New York Times & Arno Press, 1969).

8. Samuel Steinberg,《美国:一个自由人民的故事》(波士顿:Allyn and Bacon出版社,1963年),第92页,转载于PS Bennett,《列克星顿绿地发生了什么?》(门洛帕克,加利福尼亚州:Addison-Wesley出版社,1970年),第31页。

8. Samuel Steinberg, The United States: Story of a Free People (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1963), 92, reprinted in P. S. Bennett, What Happened at Lexington Green? (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1970), 31.

9.埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯,《埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯文学日记》,由富兰克林·鲍迪奇·德克斯特根据耶鲁大学公司的授权编辑(纽约:查尔斯·斯克里布纳之子出版社,1901 年)。

9. Ezra Stiles, The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, ed., under the Authority of the Corporation of Yale University, by Franklin Bowditch Dexter (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901).

10.参见 Sam Wineburg,《历史思维和其他非自然行为:规划历史教学的未来》(费城:坦普尔大学出版社,2001 年),第 63-88 页;Sam Wineburg,“NCATE 对未来的历史教师有什么要说的?不多”,《Phi Delta Kappan》86(9)(2005 年),第 662 页。

10. See Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001), 63–88; Sam Wineburg, “What Does NCATE Have to Say to Future Teachers of History? Not Much,” Phi Delta Kappan 86(9) (2005), 662.

11. Wineburg,《历史思维和其他非自然行为:规划教授过去的未来》,第 67 页。

11. Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past, 67.

12.同上,第 68 页。

12. Ibid., 68.

第三章

Chapter 3

1.亚伯拉罕·林肯,《演讲和著作 1832–1858》,唐·E·费伦巴赫编辑(纽约:美国图书馆,1989 年),第 512 页。

1. Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings 1832–1858, ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher (New York: Library of America, 1989), 512.

2. Lerone Bennett,“亚伯拉罕·林肯是白人至上主义者吗?” 《Ebony》(1968 年 2 月),35-42。

2. Lerone Bennett, “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?” Ebony (February 1968), 35–42.

3. Brian R. Dirck 编,《林肯解放:总统与种族政治》(迪卡尔布:北伊利诺伊大学出版社,2007 年)。

3. Brian R. Dirck, ed., Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007).

4.有关以林肯对种族和奴隶制的看法为重点的学术研究示例,请参阅 Dirck 的《林肯解放》; Eric Foner 编辑的《我们的林肯:林肯及其世界的新视角》(纽约:WW Norton & Co.,2008 年);以及 Phillip M. Guerty 编辑的《林肯、种族和奴隶制》,美国历史学家组织历史杂志,2007 年 10 月。

4. For examples of scholarship focused on Lincoln’s views on race and slavery, see Dirck, Lincoln Emancipated; Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World, ed. Eric Foner (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2008); and Phillip M. Guerty, ed., “Lincoln, Race, and Slavery,” Organization of American Historians Magazine of History, October 2007.

5.参见亚伯拉罕·林肯,《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》(安娜堡:密歇根大学数字图书馆制作服务部,2001 年),网址:http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

5. See Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services, 2001), available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

6.道格拉斯·L·威尔逊,《林肯之剑:总统制与言辞的力量》(纽约:Vintage Books出版社,2006年),第6页。

6. Douglas L. Wilson, Lincoln’s Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words (New York: Vintage Books, 2006), 6.

7. David Herbert Donald,《重新审视林肯:内战论文集》(纽约:Vintage Books,2001 年),第 13 页。

7. David Herbert Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War (New York: Vintage Books, 2001), 13.

8.同上,第 30 页。

8. Ibid., 30.

9. Don E. Fehrenbacher,“只有他的继子:林肯与黑人”,《内战史》20(1974),293–310,293,引自 Richard Carwardine,《林肯:目标与权力的一生》(纽约:Alfred A. Knopf,2006),33;Richard N. Current,《无人知晓的林肯》(纽约:McGraw-Hill,1963)。

9. Don E. Fehrenbacher, “Only His Stepchildren: Lincoln and the Negro,” Civil War History 20 (1974), 293–310, 293, as quoted in Richard Carwardine, Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 33; Richard N. Current, The Lincoln Nobody Knows (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963).

10. Current,《无人知晓的林肯》, 19-20。

10. Current, The Lincoln Nobody Knows, 19–20.

11.由于直到 1913 年第 17 修正案通过之前,各州立法机构选举美国参议员,因此,选民不会直接选举这两位候选人。

11. The audiences would not be directly electing either man, as until the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, state legislatures elected U.S. senators.

12.在每场辩论中,一位候选人首先发表 60 分钟的演讲,他的对手随后发表 90 分钟的演讲,然后最初的演讲者有 30 分钟的时间回应和结束演讲。

12. In each of the debates, one candidate opened with a 60-minute speech, his opponent followed with a 90-minute speech, and then the original speaker had 30 minutes to respond and close.

13. James W. Loewen,《老师对我撒的谎》(纽约:自由出版社,1995 年),第 153 页。

13. James W. Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me (New York: Free Press, 1995), 153.

14.埃里克·福纳,《自由土地、自由劳动、自由人:内战前共和党的意识形态》(纽约:牛津大学出版社,1995年),第263页。福纳写道:“有时19 世纪 50 年代,民主党人似乎唯一的政治武器就是指责共和党人亲黑人”,并指出密苏里州议员弗朗西斯·P·布莱尔将其描述为道格拉斯竞选的“不间断主题”。

14. Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 263. Foner wrote: “At times during the 1850’s it seemed that the only weapon in the Democrats’ political arsenal was the charge that the Republicans were pro-Negro,” and noted that Missouri legislator Francis P. Blair described it as the “incessant theme” of Douglas’s campaign.

15.同上,第 261 页。这些州是爱荷华州、印第安纳州、伊利诺伊州和俄勒冈州。

15. Ibid., 261. These states were Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, and Oregon.

16. Garry Wills,“不诚实的亚伯”,《时代周刊》,1992 年 10 月 5 日,第 41 页。

16. Garry Wills, “Dishonest Abe,” Time, October 5, 1992, 41.

17. Doris Kearns Goodwin,《对手团队:亚伯拉罕·林肯的政治天才》(纽约:西蒙与舒斯特出版社,2005 年),第 8 页。

17. Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005), 8.

18.福纳,《自由土地,自由劳动,自由人》,第 261-262 页。

18. Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 261–262.

19. Phillip Shaw Paludan,“林肯与黑奴制:我没时间承受痛苦”,《亚伯拉罕·林肯协会杂志》(2006 年夏季),第 32 段(http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/27.2/paludan.html

19. Phillip Shaw Paludan, “Lincoln and Negro Slavery: I Haven’t Got Time for the Pain,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association (Summer 2006), paragraph 32 (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/27.2/paludan.html)

20.乔治·M·弗雷德里克森,《白人心中的黑人形象:关于非裔美国人性格和命运的辩论1817-1914》(纽约,1971 年),第 43 页。

20. George M. Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817–1914 (New York, 1971), 43.

21. Paludan,“林肯与黑人奴隶制”。

21. Paludan, “Lincoln and Negro Slavery.”

22. Eric Foner,“林肯与殖民化”,载于Eric Foner 编,《我们的林肯:林肯及其世界的新视角》(纽约:WW Norton & Co.,2008 年),第 144 页。

22. Eric Foner, “Lincoln and Colonization,” in Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World, ed. Eric Foner (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2008), 144.

23. Lerone Bennett,《被迫走向荣耀:亚伯拉罕·林肯的白人梦想》(芝加哥:Johnson Publishing,2000 年)。

23. Lerone Bennett, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (Chicago: Johnson Publishing, 2000).

24.有关近期示例,请参阅 Foner,“林肯与殖民化”;Phillip S. Paludan,“格里利、殖民化和‘黑人代表团’”,载于Brian R. Dirck 和 Allen C. Guelzo 编辑的《林肯解放:总统与种族政治》(迪卡尔布:北伊利诺伊大学出版社,2007 年),第 29-46 页;Kevin RC Gutzman,“亚伯拉罕·林肯,杰斐逊式:殖民化的幻想” ,载于 Brian R. Dirck 和 Allen C. Guelzo 编辑的《林肯解放:总统与种族政治》(迪卡尔布:北伊利诺伊大学出版社,2007 年),第 47-72 页;Richard Blackett,“林肯与殖民化”,《OAH 历史杂志》21(4)(2007 年),第 19-22 页。

24. For recent examples, see Foner, “Lincoln and Colonization”; Phillip S. Paludan, “Greeley, Colonization, and a “Deputation of Negroes” in Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race, eds. Brian R. Dirck and Allen C. Guelzo (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007), 29–46; Kevin R. C. Gutzman, “Abraham Lincoln, Jeffersonian: The Colonization Chimera” in Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race, eds. Brian R. Dirck and Allen C. Guelzo (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007), 47–72; Richard Blackett, “Lincoln and Colonization,” OAH Magazine of History 21 (4) (2007), 19–22.

25. Fehrenbacher,“只有他的继子:林肯与黑人”,308。

25. Fehrenbacher, “Only His Stepchildren: Lincoln and the Negro,” 308.

26. Foner,“林肯与殖民化”。

26. Foner, “Lincoln and Colonization”.

27.参见《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》第5卷,第372页,网址为http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/。诸如“如果没有奴隶制和有色人种作为基础,这场战争就不可能存在”之类的言论激怒了弗雷德里克·道格拉斯等杰出的黑人。

27. See The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 5, 372, available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/. Statements such as “Without the institution of slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence” angered prominent Blacks such as Frederick Douglass.

28.亚伯拉罕·林肯,《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》(安娜堡:密歇根大学数字图书馆制作服务部,2001 年)第 5 卷,第 389 页,可访问http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

28. Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services, 2001) vol. 5, 389, available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

29. James N. Leiker,“理解亚伯拉罕的困难:林肯对种族不平等和自然权利的调和”,载于《林肯解放:总统与种族政治》,Brian R. Dirck 编辑(迪卡尔布:北伊利诺伊大学出版社,2007 年)。

29. James N. Leiker, “The Difficulties of Understanding Abe: Lincoln’s Reconciliation of Racial Inequality and Natural Rights,” in Lincoln Emancipated: The President and The Politics of Race, ed. Brian R. Dirck (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007).

30. Sam Wineburg,“解读亚伯拉罕·林肯:历史文本解读的专家/专家研究”,认知科学 22 (1998),319–346。

30. Sam Wineburg, “Reading Abraham Lincoln: An Expert/Expert Study in the Interpretation of Historical Texts,” Cognitive Science 22 (1998), 319–346.

31. Samuel S. Wineburg 和 Janice Fournier,“历史中的情境化思维”,载于M. Carretero 和 JF Voss 编辑的《历史和社会科学中的认知和教学过程》 (新泽西州希尔斯代尔:Erlbaum,1994 年)。

31. Samuel S. Wineburg and Janice Fournier, “Contextualized Thinking in History,” in Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences, eds. M. Carretero and J. F. Voss (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994).

32.参见 DW Johnson 和 RT Johnson,“通过争议进行批判性思考”,《教育领导力》 ,1988 年 5 月,第 58-64 页;国家历史教育信息中心,《历史课堂中的结构化学术争议》http://teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/teaching-guides/21731

32. See D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, “Critical Thinking Through Controversy,” Educational Leadership, May 1988, 58–64; National History Education Clearinghouse, Structured Academic Controversy in the History Classroom, http://teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/teaching-guides/21731

33. D. Martin 和 S. Wineburg,“在网络上观察思考”,《历史教师》41:3。(加利福尼亚州长滩:历史教育学会,2008)。http ://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/41.3/martin.html

33. D. Martin and S. Wineburg, “Seeing Thinking on the Web,” The History Teacher 41:3. (Long Beach, CA: Society for History Education, 2008). http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/41.3/martin.html

第四章

Chapter 4

1. Howard Zinn,《美国人民的历史》(纽约:Harper Perennial,2005 年),第 4 页;Kirkpatrick Sale,《克里斯托弗·哥伦布与天堂的征服》(纽约:Tauris Parke,2006 年)。

1. Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: Harper Perennial, 2005), 4; Kirkpatrick Sale, Christopher Columbus and the Conquest of Paradise (New York: Tauris Parke, 2006).

2. Sam Wineburg,“非自然且必要:历史思维的本质”,《历史教学》129(2007 年 12 月),6-11;Sam Wineburg 和 Jack Schneider,“颠覆布鲁姆分类法”,《教育周刊》(2009 年 9 月),28;Sam Wineburg,“哥伦布日:1892 年而不是 1492 年”,《洛杉矶时报》(2005 年 10 月 10 日),18。

2. Sam Wineburg, “Unnatural and Essential: The Nature of Historical Thinking,” Teaching History 129 (December 2007), 6–11; Sam Wineburg and Jack Schneider, “Inverting Bloom’s Taxonomy,” Education Week (September 2009), 28; Sam Wineburg, “Columbus Day: 1892 not 1492,” Los Angeles Times (October 10, 2005), 18.

3. Wineburg,“非自然且必不可少”,6-11。

3. Wineburg, “Unnatural and Essential,” 6–11.

4.参见 Matthew Frye Jacobson,《不同颜色的白人:欧洲移民与种族炼金术》(剑桥:哈佛大学出版社,1999 年)。

4. See Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigration and the Alchemy of Race (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).

5.北美合众国全国委员会第二条,引自卡尔·弗里蒙特·布兰德,《印第安纳州一无所知党的历史》,《印第安纳历史杂志》18(1922 年),73。

5. Article II of the National Council of the United States of North America, quoted in Carl Fremont Brand, “The History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History 18 (1922), 73.

6. “克里斯托弗·哥伦布——新世界的发现者”,《康涅狄格天主教报》25(1878 年 5 月),4。

6. “Christopher Columbus—Discoverer of the New World,” Connecticut Catholic 25 (May 1878), 4.

7. Christopher J. Kauffman,《信仰与兄弟情谊:哥伦布骑士团的历史,1882–1982》(纽约:哈珀和罗出版社,1982 年),第 16 页。

7. Christopher J. Kauffman, Faith and Fraternalism: The History of the Knights of Columbus, 1882–1982 (New York: Harper and Row, 1982), 16.

8. Thomas J. Schlereth,“哥伦比亚、哥伦布和哥伦布主义”,《美国历史杂志》79(1992 年 12 月),937–968。

8. Thomas J. Schlereth, “Columbia, Columbus, and Columbianism,” Journal of American History 79 (December 1992), 937–968.

9.参见戴安娜·拉维奇所著《伟大的学校战争:纽约市 1805–1973》(纽约:基础书籍出版社,1974 年)第 9 章“掌权的粗花呢集团”,第92–99 页。

9. See “The Tweed Ring in Charge,” Chapter 9, in Diane Ravitch, The Great School Wars: New York City 1805–1973 (New York: Basic Books, 1974), 92–99.

第五章

Chapter 5

1.如需查看完整信件,请访问http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/99/edison/images/mrs2.gif

1. For the full letter, go to http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/99/edison/images/mrs2.gif

2. David Nye,《电气化美国:新技术的社会意义,1880–1940》(马萨诸塞州剑桥:麻省理工学院出版社,1990 年),第 299 页。

2. David Nye, Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880–1940 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 299.

3. D. Clayton Brown,《美国农村电力:农村电气化之战》(康涅狄格州韦斯特波特:格林伍德出版社,1980 年),第十五页。

3. D. Clayton Brown, Electricity for Rural America: The Fight for the REA (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), xv.

4. Brown,《美国农村电力》,第十六页。

4. Brown, Electricity for Rural America, xvi.

5.有关此的更多信息,请参阅 Ruth Schwartz Cowen 在《母亲的更多工作:从开放式炉灶到微波炉的家庭技术讽刺》(纽约:基础书籍出版社,1983 年)第 11-12 页中提出的“工作流程”概念。

5. For more on this, see Ruth Schwartz Cowen’s notion of a “work process” in More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 11–12.

6. Susan Strasser,《永无止境:美国家务史》(纽约:亨利·霍尔特出版社,1982 年),第 105 页。

6. Susan Strasser, Never Done: A History of American Housework (New York: Henry Holt, 1982), 105.

7. Brown,《美国农村电力》,第十三页。

7. Brown, Electricity for Rural America, xiii.

8.同上,第十四页。

8. Ibid., xiv.

9. Robert Caro,《林登·约翰逊的岁月:通往权力之路》(纽约:Alfred A. Knopf,1982 年),504-509 页。

9. Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), 504–509.

10. Nye,《电气化美国》,第 303 页。

10. Nye, Electrifying America, 303.

11.同上,第 287 页。

11. Ibid., 287.

12. Brown,《美国农村电力》,第 75 页。

12. Brown, Electricity for Rural America, 75.

13.同上,第 112 页。

13. Ibid., 112.

14. Strasser,《永不完成》,第 81 页。

14. Strasser, Never Done, 81.

15. Cowen,《母亲的更多工作》, 173。

15. Cowen, More Work for Mother, 173.

16. Nye,《电气化美国》,第 267 页。

16. Nye, Electrifying America, 267.

17.同上,第 24 页。

17. Ibid., 24.

18.斯特拉瑟(《永不完成》,第 279 页)又举例说,到 1980 年,“几乎一半”的美国家庭都拥有洗碗机——这距离拉思罗普夫人写下她的洗碗机已经过去了 59 年!

18. In another example, Strasser (Never Done, 279) claims that “almost half” of American households had a dishwasher by 1980—59 years after Mrs. Lathrop wrote about hers!

19. Cowen,《母亲的更多工作》, 159。

19. Cowen, More Work for Mother, 159.

20.同上。

20. Ibid.

21.斜体字为后加。如需查看完整信件,请访问http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/99/edison/images/mrs2.gif

21. Italics added. For the full letter, go to http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/99/edison/images/mrs2.gif

22. Cowen,《母亲的更多工作》, 174。

22. Cowen, More Work for Mother, 174.

23.同上,第 178 页。

23. Ibid., 178.

24. Patricia Albjerg Graham,“扩张与排斥:美国高等教育中的女性史”,载于Nancy Cott 编辑的《美国女性史:教育》(纽约:KG Saur,1992 年),第 219 页。

24. Patricia Albjerg Graham, “Expansion and Exclusion: A History of Women in American Higher Education,” in History of Women in the United States: Education, ed. Nancy Cott, (New York: K. G. Saur, 1992), 219.

25.同上。

25. Ibid.

26.同上。

26. Ibid.

27.同上,第 223 页。

27. Ibid., 223.

28.同上,第 225 页。关于这些统计数据的另一篇文章,请参阅 Pamela Roby,“女性与美国高等教育”,《美国政治与社会科学学会年鉴》404(127)(1972 年 11 月),第 118-139 页。

28. Ibid., 225. For another article on these statistics, see Pamela Roby, “Women and American Higher Education,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 404 (127) (November 1972), 118–139.

29. Barbara Miller Solomon,《与受过教育的女性为伴:美国女性与高等教育史》(康涅狄格州纽黑文:耶鲁大学出版社,1985 年),第 121 页。

29. Barbara Miller Solomon, In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), 121.

30. W. Elliot Brownlee,“家庭价值观、妇女工作和经济增长,1800-1930 年”,《美国妇女史:家庭意识形态和家庭工作,第一部分》,第 205 页。

30. W. Elliot Brownlee, “Household Values, Women’s Work, and Economic Growth, 1800–1930,” History of Women in the United States: Domestic Ideology and Domestic Work, Part I, 205.

31. Brown,《美国农村电力》,第9页。

31. Brown, Electricity for Rural America, 9.

32.同上,116-117。

32. Ibid., 116–117.

33. Strasser,《永不完成》,第 268 页。

33. Strasser, Never Done, 268.

34.有关此内容的更多信息,请参阅 Cowen 的《母亲需要更多工作》。

34. For more on this, see Cowen, More Work for Mother.

35. Cowen,《母亲的更多工作》, 99。

35. Cowen, More Work for Mother, 99.

36.同上,第 174 页。

36. Ibid., 174.

37.同上,第 178 页。

37. Ibid., 178.

38.同上。

38. Ibid.

39.有关考恩关于“家务的发明”的论点,请参阅考恩的《母亲的更多工作》第 3 章。

39. See Cowen, More Work for Mother, Chapter 3 for her argument about “the invention of housework.”

第六章

Chapter 6

1.有人可能会认为斯坦贝克的小说是一部真实的作品,但关键在于虚构故事和历史叙事的“规则”有所不同。这并非否认虚构作品中存在真相,而是说虚构作品允许塑造虚构人物,并允许作者偏离既有证据来讲述真相。或者,正如戴维森和莱特尔所言,“与历史学家不同,他(斯坦贝克)不受严格的证据和解释规则的约束,他只受人类境况的真实表达所束缚。”参见詹姆斯·W·戴维森和马克·H·莱特尔,《事后:历史侦查的艺术》(波士顿:麦格劳-希尔高等教育出版社,1999年),第260页。

1. An argument can be made that Steinbeck’s novel is a work of truth, but the point is that the “rules” of fictional stories and historical narratives differ. This is not to argue that in fiction, there isn’t truth, but rather that fiction allows invented characters, and straying from the evidence to tell that truth. Or, as Davidson and Lytle state, “Unlike a historian, he [Steinbeck] was not bound by strict rules of evidence and explanation, only by the true expression of the human condition.” See James W. Davidson & Mark H. Lytle, After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection (Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1999), 260.

2. Donald Worster,《尘暴:20 世纪 30 年代的南部平原》(纽约:牛津大学出版社,1979 年),第 29 页。

2. Donald Worster, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 29.

3. Alvin O. Turner 编辑,《尘暴来信》(作者:Caroline Henderson)(诺曼:俄克拉荷马大学出版社,2001 年),第 10 页。1819 年,探险家斯蒂芬·朗称之为前者,而内战后,地图将俄克拉荷马狭长地带认定为后者。

3. Alvin O. Turner, ed., Letters from the Dust Bowl (author Caroline Henderson) (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 10. In 1819, explorer Stephen Long would call it the former and after the Civil War, maps would identify the Oklahoma Panhandle as the latter.

4.历史学家对“尘暴”的开始和结束年份的具体划分存在分歧。但他们一致认为,1933 年后风暴愈演愈烈,1935 年至 1937 年是情况最为严重的时期。

4. Historians differ on exactly what years they call the beginning and the end of the Dust Bowl. But they agree that the storms worsened after 1933 and that 1935–1937 were the worst years.

5. R. Douglas Hurt,《尘暴:农业和社会史》(芝加哥:Nelson-Hall,1981 年),第 3 页。

5. R. Douglas Hurt, The Dust Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1981), 3.

6. Turner,《尘暴来信》,第 19 页;Worster,《尘暴》,第 15 页。

6. Turner, Letters from the Dust Bowl, 19; Worster, Dust Bowl, 15.

7. 《纽约时报》 1934 年 5 月 12 日报道:“巨大的尘埃云吹过 1500 英里,使城市昏暗 5 小时”。

7. “Huge Dust Cloud, Blown 1,500 Miles, Dims City 5 Hours,” New York Times, May 12, 1934, 1.

8.沃斯特,《尘暴》, 14。

8. Worster, Dust Bowl, 14.

9. Pauline W. Grey,“1935年4月14日的黑色星期日”,《米德县先驱故事》 ,1950年,第25页,www.kansasmemory.org/ item/211072

9. Pauline W. Grey, “The Black Sunday of April 14, 1935,” Pioneer Stories of Meade County, 1950, 25, www.kansasmemory.org/item/211072

10.同上,第 27 页。与此同时,格雷感到“心满意足”,因为她当天早些时候修补房子里所有裂缝的努力得到了回报,所以她可以“幸福地死去”!

10. Ibid., 27. Accompanying this was Grey’s “satisfying peace” that her efforts earlier that day to patch up all the cracks in her house were holding, so she could have “died happily!”

11.同上,第 26 页。

11. Ibid., 26.

12.有关迁移率和模式的详细描述,请参阅 Worster 的《尘暴》第 3 章“俄克拉荷马人和外来者”。

12. See Worster, Dust Bowl, Chapter 3, “Okies and Exodusters,” for a detailed rendering of migration rates and patterns.

13. Hurt,《尘暴》, 91-92。关于先前历史对此有何不同之处的讨论,请参见 Harry C. McDean,“尘暴史学”,载于JR Wunder、F. Kaye 和 V. Carstensen 编辑的《美国人眼中的尘暴经历》(博尔德:科罗拉多大学出版社,1999 年),366-384 页。

13. Hurt, The Dust Bowl, 91–92. For a discussion of how previous histories differed on this point, see Harry C. McDean, “Dust Bowl Historiography,” in Americans View Their Dust Bowl Experience, eds. J. R. Wunder, F. Kaye, and V. Carstensen (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 1999), 366–384.

14. Timothy Egan,《最艰难的时期:美国大沙尘暴幸存者的不为人知的故事》(波士顿:霍顿·米夫林公司,2006 年),第 192 页;Hurt,《尘埃》碗赛,53-54。

14. Timothy Egan, The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived The Great American Dust Bowl (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 192; Hurt, The Dust Bowl, 53–54.

15. McDean,“尘暴史学”,369。

15. McDean, “Dust Bowl Historiography,” 369.

16.沃斯特,《尘暴》, 66。

16. Worster, Dust Bowl, 66.

17.同上,第 77 页。

17. Ibid., 77.

18.同上,第 83 页。

18. Ibid., 83.

19.同上,第 88 页;赫特,《尘暴》,第 21 页。

19. Ibid., 88; Hurt, The Dust Bowl, 21.

20.请参阅美国国会图书馆的馆藏,网址为http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/hult_sod.html,了解这些几乎已经消失的草皮房的图片。

20. See the Library of Congress collection at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/hult_sod.html for pictures of these almost extinct sod houses.

21. Worster,《尘暴》, 94。

21. Worster, Dust Bowl, 94.

22.同上,第 97 页。

22. Ibid., 97.

23.赫特,《尘暴》, 15。

23. Hurt, The Dust Bowl, 15.

24.参见保罗·邦尼菲尔德,《尘暴:男人、尘土和萧条》(阿尔伯克基:新墨西哥大学出版社,1979 年)。

24. See Paul Bonnifield, The Dust Bowl: Men, Dirt, and Depression (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1979).

25.参见 James C. Malin,《北美草原:其历史导论》(堪萨斯州劳伦斯:作者,1961 年)。

25. See James C. Malin, The Grassland of North America: Prolegomena to Its History (Lawrence, KS: Author, 1961).

26. McDean,“尘暴史学”。

26. McDean, “Dust Bowl Historiography.”

27. William Cronon,“故事的场所:自然、历史和叙事”,《美国历史杂志》78(4)(1992)1347-1376。

27. William Cronon, “A Place for Stories: Nature, History, and Narrative,” The Journal of American History 78(4)(1992) 1347–1376.

28.关于“打开教科书”教学法以及如何运用教科书的更多信息,请参阅第八章“古巴导弹危机”。另请参阅以下文献:Sam Wineburg,“打开教科书,为学生提供第二视角”,《教育周刊》,2007年6月5日,第36-37页;Daisy Martin,“通过‘打开教科书’从讲授式教学过渡到课堂教学”,《美国历史学家组织通讯》,2008年11月,第9页;Daisy Martin和Chauncey Monte-Sano,“探究、争议与歧义文本:学习如何进行历史思维教学”,载于W. Warren和D. Cantu编,《历史教育101:教师培养的过去、现在和未来》(北卡罗来纳州夏洛特:信息时代出版社,2007年),第167-186页。另请参阅http://sheg.stanford.edu上的众多资源。

28. For more on the “Opening Up the Textbook” approach and how to work with textbooks, see Chapter 8 on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Also see the following: Sam Wineburg, “Opening Up the Textbook and Offering Students a Second Voice,” Education Week, June 5, 2007, 36–37; Daisy Martin, “From Lecture to Lesson Through ‘Opening Up the Textbook,’” Organization of American Historians Newsletter, November 2008, 9; Daisy Martin and Chauncey Monte-Sano, “Inquiry, Controversy, and Ambiguous Texts: Learning to Teach for Historical Thinking,” in History Education 101: The Past, Present, and Future of Teacher Preparation, eds. W. Warren & D. Cantu (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2007), 167–186. See as well the many resources at http://sheg.stanford.edu

29. “支持、质疑或扩展”的语言来自 Robert B. Bain,“‘他们认为世界是平的?’将人们学习的原则应用于高中历史教学”,载于M. Suzanne Donovan 和 John Branford 编辑的《学生如何在课堂上学习历史、数学和科学》(华盛顿特区:国家科学院出版社,2005 年),第 179-213 页。

29. The language of “support, contest or extend” comes from Robert B. Bain, “‘They Thought the World Was Flat?’ Applying the Principles of How People Learn in Teaching High School History,” in How Students Learn History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom, eds. M. Suzanne Donovan and John Branford (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2005), 179–213.

30. HE Dregne,“干旱地区的荒漠化”,载于《荒漠化的物理学》, F. El-Baz 和 MHA Hassan 编辑(荷兰多德雷赫特:Martinus Nijhoff),第 4-34 页。

30. H. E. Dregne, “Desertification of Arid Lands,” in Physics of Desertification, eds. F. El-Baz and M. H. A. Hassan (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff), 4–34.

第七章

Chapter 7

1.道格拉斯·布林克利,《罗莎·帕克斯:一生》(纽约:企鹅出版社,2000年),第106页。关于司机当时说的话,说法不一,从“把前面的座位让给我……你们最好别这么较真,把座位让给我”到“黑鬼们,往后退”。参见罗莎·帕克斯与吉姆·哈斯金斯合著的《我的故事》 (纽约:企鹅出版社,1992年),以及珍妮特·史蒂文森的文章《罗莎·帕克斯毫不妥协》,载于《美国遗产》第23卷第2期(1972年2月),网址:http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1972/2/1972_2_56.shtml

1. Douglas Brinkley, Rosa Parks: A Life (New York: Penguin Books, 2000), 106. There are a variety of accounts of what the driver actually said, ranging from “Let me have those front seats…. Y’all better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats” to “Niggers move back.” My Story by Rosa Parks with Jim Haskins (New York: Puffin Books, 1992) in Janet Stevenson, “Rosa Parks Wouldn’t Budge,” American Heritage XXIII (2) (February 1972), available at http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1972/2/1972_2_56.shtml

2.史蒂文森,《罗莎·帕克斯毫不妥协》。

2. Stevenson, “Rosa Parks Wouldn’t Budge.”

3. Sam Wineburg,“再见,哥伦布”,史密森尼杂志 39 (2) (2008),98–104。

3. Sam Wineburg, “Goodbye, Columbus,” Smithsonian Magazine 39(2) (2008), 98–104.

4. Sam Wineburg 和 Chauncey Monte-Sano,“美国名人:美国英雄万神殿的变迁”,《美国历史杂志》93(2)(2008),1186-1202。

4. Sam Wineburg and Chauncey Monte-Sano, “Famous Americans: The Changing Pantheon of American Heroes,” Journal of American History 93(2) (2008), 1186–1202.

5.美国商务部气象局,地方气候数据及比较数据,阿拉巴马州蒙哥马利,1955 年(可通过 NOAA 卫星和信息服务获取,http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/)。

5. U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau, Local Climatological Data, with Comparative Data, Montgomery, Alabama, 1955 (available through NOAA Satellite and Information Service, http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/).

6.罗莎·帕克斯,西德尼·罗杰斯采访,《罗莎·帕克斯:发起公共汽车抵制运动》,太平洋广播电台采访,1956 年夏季。

6. Rosa Parks, interview by Sidney Rogers, Rosa Parks: Beginning the Bus Boycott, Pacific Radio Service Interview, Summer 1956.

7.例如,参见乔伊·哈基姆在《美国史:全体人民 1945–2001》(纽约:牛津大学出版社,1993 年)一书中的精彩章节,第 78 页:“但在 1955 年 12 月 1 日的晚上,帕克斯夫人只是单纯地感到疲惫。她工作了一整天。她感觉不舒服,脖子和背都疼。她上了公共汽车,回家了。”

7. See, for example, Joy Hakim’s otherwise excellent chapter in A History of US: All the People 1945–2001 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 78: “But on the evening of the first day of December in 1955, Mrs. Parks was mostly just plain tired. She had put in a full day at her job. She didn’t feel well, and her neck and back hurt. She got on a bus and headed home.”

8.罗莎·帕克斯,引自奥尔登·D·莫里斯,《民权运动的起源:黑人社区组织起来争取变革》(纽约:自由出版社,1984 年),第 51 页。

8. Rosa Parks, cited in Alden D. Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change (New York: Free Press, 1984), 51.

9.同上。

9. Ibid.

10. “帕克斯,罗莎·李”,《世界图书百科全书》(芝加哥:世界图书公司,1989 年)。

10. “Parks, Rosa Lee,” The World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago: World Book Inc., 1989).

11. Gerald Danzer、J. Jorge Klor de Alva、Larry S. Krieger、Louis Wilson 和 Nancy Woloch,《美国人》(伊利诺伊州埃文斯顿:McDougal Littell,2003 年),910。

11. Gerald Danzer, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Larry S. Krieger, Louis Wilson, and Nancy Woloch, The Americans (Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell, 2003), 910.

12. Joyce Appleby、Alan Brinkley 和 James McPherson,《美国之旅》(芝加哥:Glencoe/McGraw-Hill,2003 年),第 841 页。

12. Joyce Appleby, Alan Brinkley, and James McPherson, The American Journey (Chicago: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2003), 841.

13. Winthrop D. Jordan、Miriam Greenblatt 和 John S. Bowes,《美国人:自由人民的历史》(伊利诺伊州埃文斯顿:麦克杜格尔·利特尔出版社,1985 年),第 721 页。

13. Winthrop D. Jordan, Miriam Greenblatt, and John S. Bowes, The Americans: History of a Free People (Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell, 1985), 721.

14.蒙哥马利市法典,第6章,第10-11节。

14. Montgomery City Code, Chapter 6, Sections 10–11.

15. Brinkley,《罗莎·帕克斯:一生》,第 58、106 页。

15. Brinkley, Rosa Parks: A Life, 58, 106.

16.同上,94-97。

16. Ibid., 94–97.

17.参见 Elizabeth Loftus 和 Katherine Ketcham,《辩护证人:被告、目击证人和将记忆置于审判台上的专家》(纽约:圣马丁出版社,1992 年)。

17. See Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham, Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1992).

18.罗莎·帕克斯与吉姆·哈斯金斯合著,《罗莎·帕克斯:我的故事》(纽约:Dial Books出版社,1992年),第113页。

18. Rosa Parks with Jim Haskins, Rosa Parks: My Story (New York: Dial Books, 1992), 113.

19.罗莎·帕克斯与吉姆·哈斯金斯合著,《我是罗莎·帕克斯》(纽约:Dial Books出版社,1997年),第8页。

19. Rosa Parks with Jim Haskins, I Am Rosa Parks (New York: Dial Books, 1997), 8.

20. Rogers, Rosa Parks: Beginning the Bus Boycott .

20. Rogers, Rosa Parks: Beginning the Bus Boycott.

21.蒙哥马利市法典,第6章,第10-11节。

21. Montgomery City Code, Chapter 6, Sections 10–11.

22.蒙哥马利市法典,下载自http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/browder-v-gayle-1956

22. Montgomery City Code, downloaded from http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/browder-v-gayle-1956

23. 1940 年阿拉巴马州法典第 48 篇第 301(31a、b、c) 条,经修订,网址:http://faculty.washington.edu/documents_us/browderv.gayle.htm

23. Title 48, § 301(31a, b, c), Code of Alabama of 1940, as amended, at http://faculty.washington.edu/documents_us/browderv.gayle.htm

24. 罗莎·帕克斯诉蒙哥马利市,上诉法院简报,1956 年 3 月 28 日提交,阿拉巴马州上诉法院。

24. Rosa Parks v. City of Montgomery, appellate court brief, filed March 28, 1956, Alabama Court of Appeals.

25. Rogers, Rosa Parks: Beginning the Bus Boycott .

25. Rogers, Rosa Parks: Beginning the Bus Boycott.

26.同上,4:00–4:33。

26. Ibid., 4:00–4:33.

27.林恩·尼尔瑞采访罗莎·帕克斯,《民权偶像罗莎·帕克斯逝世》,美国国家公共广播电台,网址:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php? storyId=4973548

27. Rosa Parks, interviewed by Lynn Neary, Civil Rights Icon Rosa Parks Dies, National Public Radio, at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4973548

28. Stewart Burns,《自由的曙光:蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动》(教堂山:北卡罗来纳大学出版社,1997 年),第 34 页。

28. Stewart Burns, Daybreak of Freedom: The Montgomery Bus Boycott (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 34.

29. 《亚特兰大宪法报》,1900 年 8 月 16 日,引自 Burns,第 34 页,第 15 号脚注。

29. Atlanta Constitution, August 16, 1900, cited in Burns, 34, n. 15.

30. 《亚特兰大宪法报》,1900 年 9 月 20 日,引自 August Meier 和 Elliot Rudwick,“1900-1906 年南方抵制吉姆·克劳街车的运动”,《美国历史杂志》(1969 年 3 月),756-775 页。

30. Atlanta Constitution, September 20, 1900, cited in August Meier and Elliot Rudwick, “The Boycott Movement Against Jim Crow Streetcars in the South, 1900–1906,” Journal of American History (March 1969), 756–775.

31. Jo Ann Gibson Robinson,《蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动及其发起者:Jo Ann Gibson Robinson 的回忆录》(诺克斯维尔:田纳西大学出版社,1987 年)。

31. Jo Ann Gibson Robinson, The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It: The Memoir of Jo Ann Gibson Robinson (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1987).

32. ER Shipp,“民权运动的奠基象征人物罗莎·帕克斯逝世,享年92岁”,《纽约时报》,2005年10月25日,网址:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/national/25parks.html ?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2

32. E. R. Shipp, “Rosa Parks, 92, Founding Symbol of Civil Rights Movement, Dies,” The New York Times, October 25, 2005, at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/national/25parks.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2

33. Ralph Abernathy,“社会运动的自然史”(硕士论文,佐治亚州亚特兰大,1958 年),网址:http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/rosaparks/1/sources/22/

33. Ralph Abernathy, “The Natural History of a Social Movement” (Master’s thesis, Atlanta, Georgia, 1958), at http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/rosaparks/1/sources/22/

34.同上。

34. Ibid.

35. Shipp,“民权运动的创始象征罗莎·帕克斯逝世,享年92岁。”

35. Shipp, “Rosa Parks, 92, Founding Symbol of Civil Rights Movement, Dies.

36.参见注释 2,“社会革命”,摘自《以文献为媒介的教学:勇敢之举——罗莎·帕克斯的逮捕记录》,美国国家档案馆网站“教育工作者和学生”栏目,网址为http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks/

36. See Note 2, “Social Revolution,” from Teaching with Documents: An Act of Courage, the Arrest Records of Rosa Parks, the National Archives website, “Educators and Students,” at http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks/

37. 历史思维很重要,教师资源,学生作业示例(学生 B),网址:http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/rosaparks/1/studentwork/paper2/

37. Historical Thinking Matters, Resources for Teachers, sample student work (Student B) at http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/rosaparks/1/studentwork/paper2/

第八章

Chapter 8

1.乔治·塔姆斯,《人与政策》,《纽约时报》 ,1962年12月10日,第11页。

1. George Tames, “Men and Policy,” The New York Times, December 10, 1962, 11.

2. Ralph Volney Harlow 和 Hermon N. Noyes,《美国的故事》(纽约:霍尔特、莱因哈特和温斯顿出版社,1964 年),第 793 页。

2. Ralph Volney Harlow and Hermon N. Noyes, Story of America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), 793.

3. Richard N. Current、Alexander DeConde 和 Harris L. Dante,《美国历史》(亚特兰大:Scott, Foresman and Co.,1967 年),第 751 页。

3. Richard N. Current, Alexander DeConde, and Harris L. Dante, United States History (Atlanta: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1967), 751.

4. Richard C. Wade、Howard B. Wilder 和 Louise C. Wade,《美国史》(波士顿:霍顿·米夫林公司,1966 年),第 827 页。

4. Richard C. Wade, Howard B. Wilder, and Louise C. Wade, A History of the United States (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966), 827.

5. Robert F. Kennedy,《十三天:古巴导弹危机回忆录》(纽约:新美国图书馆,1969 年),第 107-109 页。

5. Robert F. Kennedy, Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York: New American Library, 1969), 107–109.

6. Robert Kennedy,“司法部长致国务卿的备忘录”,司法部长办公室,华盛顿特区,1962 年 10 月 30 日。

6. Robert Kennedy, “Memorandum for the Secretary of State from the Attorney General,” Office of the Attorney General, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1962.

7.尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫,《赫鲁晓夫回忆录:最后的遗嘱》,斯特罗布·塔尔博特译、编(波士顿:利特尔·布朗出版社,1974 年),第 512 页。

7. Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament, trans., ed. Strobe Talbott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974), 512.

8. Henry N. Drewry 和 Thomas H. O'Connor,《美国是》(纽约:Glencoe,1995 年),第 648 页。

8. Henry N. Drewry and Thomas H. O’Connor, America Is (New York: Glencoe, 1995), 648.

9. Edward L. Ayers 等人,《美国国歌》(德克萨斯州奥斯汀:霍尔特、莱因哈特和温斯顿出版社,2007 年),第 885 页。

9. Edward L. Ayers et al., The American Anthem (Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2007), 885.

10. Sam Wineburg,“打开教科书,为学生提供第二声音”,《教育周刊》,2007 年 6 月 5 日,第 3、37 页;Daisy Martin,“通过‘打开教科书’从讲授到课程”,《美国历史学家组织通讯》,2008 年 11 月,第 9 页;Daisy Martin 和 Chauncey Monte-Sano,“探究、争议和歧义文本:学习历史思维教学”,载于《历史教育 101:教师培养的过去、现在和未来》,W. Warren 和 D. Cantu 编辑(北卡罗来纳州夏洛特:信息时代出版社,2007 年),第 167-186 页。

10. Sam Wineburg, “Opening Up the Textbook and Offering Students a Second Voice,” Education Week, June 5, 2007, 3, 37; Daisy Martin, “From Lecture to Lesson Through ‘Opening Up the Textbook,’” Organization of American Historians Newsletter, November 2008, 9; Daisy Martin and Chauncey Monte-Sano, “Inquiry, Controversy, and Ambiguous Texts: Learning to Teach for Historical Thinking,” in History Education 101: The Past, Present, and Future of Teacher Preparation, ed. W. Warren and D. Cantu (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2007), 167–186.

11. Kennedy,“司法部长致国务卿的备忘录”。

11. Kennedy, “Memorandum for the Secretary of State from the Attorney General.”

12.阿纳托利·多勃雷宁,摘自俄罗斯外交部档案,译自日本NHK电视台提供的副本,载于理查德·内德·莱博和珍妮丝·格罗斯·斯坦,《我们都输掉了冷战》(普林斯顿,新泽西州:普林斯顿大学出版社,1994年),附录,第523-526页,略有修订。http ://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027%20Dobrynin%20Cable%20to%20USSR.pdf

12. Anatoly Dobrynin, from Russian Foreign Ministry archives, translation from copy provided by NHK [Japanese TV station], in Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein, We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), Appendix, 523–526, with minor revisions. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027%20Dobrynin%20Cable%20to%20USSR.pdf

13. Thomas Blanton,“边缘政策编年史”,《威尔逊季刊》,1997 年夏季,90-93 页。

13. Thomas Blanton, “Annals of Brinkmanship,” The Wilson Quarterly, Summer 1997, 90–93.

14.同上,第 91 页。

14. Ibid., 91.

15. McGeorge Bundy,《危险与生存:原子弹诞生五十年来的选择》(纽约:兰登书屋,1987 年),第 432-436 页。

15. McGeorge Bundy, Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years (New York: Random House, 1987), 432–436.

16.阿纳托利·多勃雷宁,《密语:莫斯科大使与美国六位冷战总统(1962-1986)》(纽约:时代图书,1995 年),第 90 页。

16. Anatoly Dobrynin, In Confidence: Moscow’s Ambassador to America’s Six Cold War Presidents (1962–1986) (New York: Times Books, 1995), 90.

17.大卫·塞尔夫(编剧),《惊爆十三天》。DVD。罗杰·唐纳森执导。新线电影公司,2001年。

17. David Self [Screenwriter], Thirteen Days. DVD. Directed by Roger Donaldson. New Line Cinema, 2001.

18. Philip Brenner,“颠覆历史”,乔治·华盛顿大学国家安全档案馆,网址:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/brenner.htm#2

18. Philip Brenner, “Turning History on Its Head,” the National Security Archive, George Washington University, at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/brenner.htm#2

19.例如,参见 Graham Allison 和 Philip Zelikow 合著的《决策的本质》(第 2 版)(纽约:朗文出版社,1999 年);James G. Blight 和 David A. Welch合著的《濒临崩溃:美国人和苏联人重新审视古巴导弹危机》(纽约:希尔和王出版社,1989 年)。

19. See, for instance, Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 1999); James G. Blight and David A. Welch, On the Brink: Americans and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989).

20. Brenner,“颠覆历史”。

20. Brenner, “Turning History on Its Head.”

21. Sergei N. Khrushchev,《尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫与超级大国的建立》(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000),第 641 页。

21. Sergei N. Khrushchev, Nikita Khrushchev and the Creation of a Superpower (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000), 641.

22. Blanton,《边缘政策编年史》,93。

22. Blanton, “Annals of Brinkmanship,” 93.

23. Barton Bernstein,“重新思考导弹危机”,载于 JA Nathan 编辑的《古巴导弹危机再探》(纽约:圣马丁出版社,1992 年),第 106 页。

23. Barton Bernstein, “Reconsidering the Missile Crisis,” in The Cuban Missile Crisis Revisited, ed. J. A. Nathan (New York: St. Martin’s, 1992), 106.

指数

Index

本索引中的页码与本书印刷版相对应。请使用电子阅读器的搜索功能查找此处列出的主题和术语。

The page references in this index correspond to the print edition of this book. Please use the search function of your e-reader to locate the topics and terms listed herein.

 

 

阿伯纳西,拉尔夫,108–109、112、118、150 页脚注 33

Abernathy, Ralph, 108–109, 112, 118, 150 n. 33

亚伯拉罕·林肯历史数字化项目,48

Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project, 48

亚当斯,亨利,2,9,145 n. 7

Adams, Henry, 2, 9, 145 n. 7

亚当斯,约翰,2

Adams, John, 2

非裔美国人。参见“林肯的背景​​”单元;“罗莎·帕克斯/蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动”单元。

African Americans. See Lincoln in Context unit; Rosa Parks/Montgomery Bus Boycott unit

农业调整

Agricultural Adjustment

行政管理(AAA),87

Administration (AAA), 87

教育联盟,83

Alliance for Education, 83

艾利森,格雷厄姆,150 页脚注 19

Allison, Graham, 150 n. 19

艾林,布鲁斯·J.,136

Allyn, Bruce J., 136

Amazon.com,3

Amazon.com, 3

美国古文物协会,83

American Antiquarian Society, 83

《美国梦:约翰·史密斯船长》(Lemay),2

American Dream of Captain John Smith, The (Lemay), 2

美国历史学会,141

American Historical Association, 141

美国革命。参见列克星顿绿地单元。

American Revolution. See Lexington Green unit

《美国恒河》(纳斯特漫画),54、59、62-64页

“American River Ganges, The” (Nast cartoon), 54, 59, 62–64

安妮,女王,2,4,10

Anne, Queen, 2, 4, 10

安纳伯格传媒,48

Annenberg Media, 48

Appleby,Joyce,149 页脚注 12

Appleby, Joyce, 149 n. 12

阿加尔,塞缪尔,4

Argall, Samuel, 4

弗吉尼亚州古迹保护协会,16

Association for the Preservation of Virginia’s Antiquities, 16

圣母升天学院,83

Assumption College, 83

阿瓦隆计划,64,142

Avalon Project, The, 64, 142

艾尔斯,爱德华·L.,150页脚注9

Ayers, Edward L., 150 n. 9

贝恩,罗伯特·B.,149页脚注29

Bain, Robert B., 149 n. 29

波卡洪塔斯在弗吉尼亚州詹姆斯敦受洗(查普曼画作),2-3

Baptism of Pocahantas at Jamestown, Virginia (Chapman painting), 2–3

Barbour, Philip L., 2–4, 8, 11, 145 n. 5, 145 n. 10

Barbour, Philip L., 2–4, 8, 11, 145 n. 5, 145 n. 10

Barker, John, 18–19, 24, 30, 146 n. 7

Barker, John, 18–19, 24, 30, 146 n. 7

基本,54,61

B.A.S.I.C., 54, 61

巴斯勒,罗伊·P.,48岁

Basler, Roy P., 48

列克星顿战役。参见列克星顿绿地部队

Battle of Lexington. See Lexington Green unit

列克星顿战役(杜利特尔蚀刻版画),17–18、20–21、23

Battle of Lexington, The (Doolittle etching), 17–18, 20–21, 23

猪湾惨败,125、129、141

Bay of Pigs fiasco, 125, 129, 141

比彻,凯瑟琳,66岁

Beecher, Catherine, 66

比彻,莱曼,51

Beecher, Lyman, 51

贝尔,菲利普,第十二卷,第145页脚注6

Bell, Philip, xii, 145 n. 6

贝拉米,弗朗西斯,52岁

Bellamy, Francis, 52

Bennett, Lerone, 32, 36, 146 n. 2, 147 n. 23

Bennett, Lerone, 32, 36, 146 n. 2, 147 n. 23

Bennett,PS,146 n. 8

Bennett, P. S., 146 n. 8

伯恩斯坦,巴顿,129,150 脚注 23

Bernstein, Barton, 129, 150 n. 23

比安卡罗萨,吉娜,145 n. 5

Biancarosa, Gina, 145 n. 5

自由的诞生(桑德汉姆画作),17、18、21、23

Birth of Liberty (Sandham painting), 17, 18, 21, 23

布莱克特,理查德,147 页脚注 24

Blackett, Richard, 147 n. 24

黑人历史月,111

Black History Month, 111

黑色星期日(1935),85

Black Sunday (1935), 85

布莱尔,弗朗西斯·P.,147页脚注14

Blair, Francis P., 147 n. 14

布兰顿,托马斯,127,150 脚注 13

Blanton, Thomas, 127, 150 n. 13

布莱特,詹姆斯·G.,136,150 n. 19

Blight, James G., 136, 150 n. 19

邦尼菲尔德,保罗,149页脚注24

Bonnifield, Paul, 149 n. 24

Bowes,John S.,149 页脚注 13

Bowes, John S., 149 n. 13

布兰德,卡尔·弗里蒙特,147号,第5页

Brand, Carl Fremont, 147 n. 5

布兰福德,约翰,149 n. 29

Branford, John, 149 n. 29

菲利普·布伦纳,128, 150 n。 18

Brenner, Philip, 128, 150 n. 18

布林克利,艾伦,149 页脚注 12

Brinkley, Alan, 149 n. 12

布林克利,道格拉斯,149 n. 1

Brinkley, Douglas, 149 n. 1

布劳德诉盖尔案,108

Browder v. Gayle, 108

Brown, D. Clayton, 66, 67, 73, 148 n. 3

Brown, D. Clayton, 66, 67, 73, 148 n. 3

Brownlee, W. Elliot, 148 n. 30

Brownlee, W. Elliot, 148 n. 30

布莱恩,威廉·詹宁斯,50岁

Bryan, William Jennings, 50

邦迪,麦克乔治,127,150 n. 15

Bundy, McGeorge, 127, 150 n. 15

伯克斯,玛丽·费尔,108

Burks, Mary Fair, 108

Burns,Stewart,150 n. 28

Burns, Stewart, 150 n. 28

布什,乔治·W,54岁

Bush, George W., 54

坎贝尔,海伦,66岁

Campbell, Helen, 66

坎图,D.,149 n。 28, 150 n. 28, 150 10

Cantu, D., 149 n. 28, 150 n. 10

纽约卡内基公司,第十二届

Carnegie Corporation of New York, xii

罗伯特·卡罗,66, 75, 148 n。 9

Caro, Robert, 66, 75, 148 n. 9

Carretero, M., 147 n. 31

Carretero, M., 147 n. 31

Carstensen, V., 148 n. 13

Carstensen, V., 148 n. 13

漫画、社论,54、59、61-64

Cartoons, editorial, 54, 59, 61–64

卡斯特罗,菲德尔,127,142

Castro, Fidel, 127, 142

天主教移民,50-51、53、55、58

Catholic immigrants, 50–51, 53, 55, 58

查普曼,约翰,2,6

Chapman, John, 2, 6

克里斯托弗·哥伦布与征服天堂(特价),49

Christopher Columbus and the Conquest of Paradise (Sale), 49

民权运动。参见罗莎·帕克斯/蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动单元

Civil Rights movement. See Rosa Parks/Montgomery Bus Boycott unit

内战,第十卷,第87-88页。另见“林肯的背景​​”单元。

Civil War, x, 87–88. See also Lincoln in Context unit

克利夫兰,格罗弗,51岁

Cleveland, Grover, 51

冷战,126。另见古巴导弹危机单元

Cold War, 126. See also Cuban Missile Crisis unit

殖民时期的美国。参见列克星顿格林救援队;波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯救援队

Colonial America. See Lexington Green unit; Pocahantas/John Smith rescue unit

哥伦布,克里斯托弗,37,49-64

Columbus, Christopher, 37, 49–64

哥伦布日/克里斯托弗·哥伦布单元,49–64

Columbus Day/Christopher Columbus unit, 49–64

引言和背景,49-52页

introduction and background, 49–52

概述,xi

overview, xi

教学原因,52-53

reasons for teaching, 52–53

情景,53-54

scenarios, 53–54

资源和工具,55-64页

sources and tools, 55–64

建议资源,64

suggested resources, 64

材料使用情况,53-54

use of materials, 53–54

科尔文,克劳黛特,108

Colvin, Claudette, 108

科尔韦尔,丹尼尔,56岁

Colwell, Daniel, 56

共同核心州立标准(CCSS),x,143

Common Core State Standards (CCSS), x, 143

情境化

Contextualization

《林肯的时代背景》单元,第32-48页

Lincoln in Context unit, 32–48

蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动的背景,107-109页

Montgomery bus boycott in context, 107–109

性质,x,32,37,52

nature of, x, 32, 37, 52

库克、莫里斯、86、96、97

Cooke, Morris, 86, 96, 97

科斯特纳,凯文,128

Costner, Kevin, 128

科特,南希,148 页脚注 24

Cott, Nancy, 148 n. 24

考恩,露丝·施瓦茨,66–68,74,148 n. 5

Cowen, Ruth Schwartz, 66–68, 74, 148 n. 5

威廉克罗农,89, 104, 149 n。 27

Cronon, William, 89, 104, 149 n. 27

古巴导弹危机小组,124-142页

Cuban Missile Crisis unit, 124–142

引言和背景,124-128页

introduction and background, 124–128

概述,xi

overview, xi

教学原因,128-129

reasons for teaching, 128–129

情景,129–130

scenarios, 129–130

资料和工具,131–141

sources and tools, 131–141

建议资源,142

suggested resources, 142

材料使用情况,129–130

use of materials, 129–130

Current,Richard N.,33,146 n. 9,150 n. 3

Current, Richard N., 33, 146 n. 9, 150 n. 3

达纳,RH,Jr.,24岁

Dana, R. H., Jr., 24

但丁,哈里斯 L.,150 n. 3

Dante, Harris L., 150 n. 3

丹泽尔,杰拉尔德,149页脚注11

Danzer, Gerald, 149 n. 11

戴维森,詹姆斯·W.,148 n. 1

Davidson, James W., 148 n. 1

日期,FB,106,113,114

Day, F. B., 106, 113, 114

迪恩,查尔斯,145页脚注7

Deane, Charles, 145 n. 7

德孔德,亚历山大,150 n. 3

DeConde, Alexander, 150 n. 3

德克斯特,FB,26

Dexter, F. B., 26

数字历史,64

Digital History, 64

Dirck, Brian R., 146 页脚注 3–4,147 页脚注 24,147 页脚注 29

Dirck, Brian R., 146 n. 3–4, 147 n. 24, 147 n. 29

领域特定素养,x

Domain-specific literacy, x

发现日。参见哥伦布日/克里斯托弗·哥伦布单元

Discovery Day. See Columbus Day/Christopher Columbus unit

多勃雷宁,Anatoly F.,125–129、135、136、139、150 n。 12, 150 n. 12, 150 16

Dobrynin, Anatoly F., 125–129, 135, 136, 139, 150 n. 12, 150 n. 16

唐纳德,大卫·赫伯特,33,146 n. 7

Donald, David Herbert, 33, 146 n. 7

Donovan,M. Suzanne,149 n. 29

Donovan, M. Suzanne, 149 n. 29

杜利特尔,阿莫斯,17–18,20–21,23

Doolittle, Amos, 17–18, 20–21, 23

道格拉斯,雅各布,十二

Douglas, Jacob, xii

道格拉斯,斯蒂芬·A.,x,32–35,38,40,41

Douglas, Stephen A., x, 32–35, 38, 40, 41

道格拉斯,弗雷德里克,147 n. 27

Douglass, Frederick, 147 n. 27

Dregne,HE,149 n. 30

Dregne, H. E., 149 n. 30

德鲁里,亨利·N.,150 n. 8

Drewry, Henry N., 150 n. 8

尘暴,(伤痛),88–89,99

Dust Bowl, The (Hurt), 88–89, 99

尘暴历史,104

Dust Bowl History, 104

尘暴单元,84–104

Dust Bowl unit, 84–104

引言和背景,84-89页

introduction and background, 84–89

概述,xi

overview, xi

教学理由,89-90

reasons for teaching, 89–90

资源和工具,92-103页

sources and tools, 92–103

建议资源,104

suggested resources, 104

材料使用情况,90-91

use of materials, 90–91

尘暴(沃斯特),87–89,98

Dust Bowl (Worster), 87–89, 98

爱迪生,托马斯,65–83

Edison, Thomas, 65–83

爱迪生与技术部门,65-83

Edison & Technology unit, 65–83

引言和背景,65-68页

introduction and background, 65–68

概述,xi

overview, xi

教学原因,68-69

reasons for teaching, 68–69

情景,69–70

scenarios, 69–70

资源和工具,71-82页

sources and tools, 71–82

建议资源,83

suggested resources, 83

材料使用情况,69-70

use of materials, 69–70

社论漫画,54、59、61-64页

Editorial cartoons, 54, 59, 61–64

伊根,蒂莫西,86,148 脚注 14

Egan, Timothy, 86, 148 n. 14

艾森豪威尔,德怀特·D.,137

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 137

El-Baz,F.,149 页脚注 30

El-Baz, F., 149 n. 30

爱默生,拉尔夫·沃尔多,20,21

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 20, 21

尤班克,温迪,十二

Ewbank, Wendy, xii

《尘暴地区的耕作》(Svobida),第86、95页

Farming the Dust Bowl (Svobida), 86, 95

费伦巴赫,唐 E.,40, 41, 146 n。 1, 146 n. 1, 146 9

Fehrenbacher, Don E., 40, 41, 146 n. 1, 146 n. 9

费拉罗,文森特,142

Ferraro, Vincent, 142

福戈,布拉德,十二

Fogo, Brad, xii

福纳,埃里克,34–36,146–147 页脚注 14,147 页脚注 22

Foner, Eric, 34–36, 146–147 n. 14, 147 n. 22

福特汉姆大学,83

Fordham University, 83

福尼尔,珍妮丝,147页脚注31

Fournier, Janice, 147 n. 31

富兰克林,本杰明,20

Franklin, Benjamin, 20

富兰克林和埃莉诺·罗斯福研究所,104

Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, 104

弗雷德里克森,乔治·M.,147页脚注20

Fredrickson, George M., 147 n. 20

《自由民与南方社会项目》,第48页

Freedmen and Southern Society Project, 48

弗里蒙特,约翰·C.,37岁

Fremont, John C., 37

盖奇,托马斯,27岁,31岁

Gage, Thomas, 27, 31

Gardiner,LG,7

Gardiner, L. G., 7

加里森,威廉·劳埃德,33岁,35岁

Garrison, William Lloyd, 33, 35

盖格,罗伯特·E.,85岁

Geiger, Robert E., 85

乔治·梅森大学,64、70、123、141

George Mason University, 64, 70, 123, 141

乔治·华盛顿大学,142

George Washington University, 142

吉尔德·莱尔曼研究所,48

Gilder Lehrman Institute, 48

吉特洛,本杰明,9

Gitlow, Benjamin, ix

弗雷德里克·W·格利奇,145–146 n。 12

Gleach, Frederic W., 145–146 n. 12

古德温,多丽丝·卡恩斯,147页脚注17

Goodwin, Doris Kearns, 147 n. 17

古德温,理查德,129,138

Goodwin, Richard, 129, 138

谷歌地图,65-66页

Google Maps, 65–66

格雷厄姆,帕特里夏·阿尔比约格,67,148 n. 24

Graham, Patricia Albjerg, 67, 148 n. 24

《愤怒的葡萄》(斯坦贝克著),第84、89-90、91页

Grapes of Wrath, The (Steinbeck), 84, 89–90, 91

格雷,弗雷德·D.,108

Gray, Fred D., 108

英国。参见列克星顿绿地单元

Great Britain. See Lexington Green unit

大萧条,87

Great Depression, 87

大平原干旱地区委员会,91,96-97

Great Plains Drought Area Committee, 91, 96–97

大平原报告,第88页

Great Plains Report, 88

伟大的流氓(刘易斯),2

Great Rogue, The (Lewis), 2

格里利,霍勒斯,37岁

Greeley, Horace, 37

格林布拉特,米里亚姆,149页脚注13

Greenblatt, Miriam, 149 n. 13

绿色革命,90

Green Revolution, 90

格雷,保琳·温克勒,85,148 n. 9

Grey, Pauline Winkler, 85, 148 n. 9

Guelzo,Allen C.,147 页脚注 24

Guelzo, Allen C., 147 n. 24

Guerty, Phillip M., 146 n. 4

Guerty, Phillip M., 146 n. 4

格瓦拉,切,138,142

Guevara, Che, 138, 142

格思里,伍迪,84岁,85岁,90岁

Guthrie, Woody, 84, 85, 90

Gutzman, Kevin RC, 147 n. 24

Gutzman, Kevin R. C., 147 n. 24

哈基姆,《乔伊》,第149页脚注7

Hakim, Joy, 149 n. 7

哈尔索尔,保罗,64岁,83岁

Halsall, Paul, 64, 83

哈尔斯特德,弗朗西斯·亚当斯,63岁

Halsted, Francis Adams, 63

哈洛,拉尔夫·沃尔尼,150 n. 2

Harlow, Ralph Volney, 150 n. 2

《哈珀周刊》,第54、59页

Harper’s Weekly, 54, 59

哈里森,本杰明,49–53,55,57,64

Harrison, Benjamin, 49–53, 55, 57, 64

哈佛大学,83

Harvard University, 83

Haskins, Jim, 106, 149 n. 1, 149 n. 18–19

Haskins, Jim, 106, 149 n. 1, 149 n. 18–19

Hassan,MHA,149 n. 30

Hassan, M. H. A., 149 n. 30

亨德森,卡罗琳,84–87,91,93,94

Henderson, Caroline, 84–87, 91, 93, 94

亨利,帕特里克,105

Henry, Patrick, 105

赫恩登,威廉,33岁

Herndon, William, 33

赫伦科尔,莱斯利,第十二卷,第145页脚注6

Herrenkohl, Leslie, xii, 145 n. 6

历史思维至关重要项目,第十二届

Historical Thinking Matters Project, xii

历史很重要,70

History Matters, 70

列克星顿战役史(菲尼),17-18

History of the Battle of Lexington (Phinney), 17–18

胡佛,赫伯特,87岁

Hoover, Herbert, 87

霍顿,迈尔斯,106

Horton, Myles, 106

赫尔斯特兰德,弗雷德,104

Hulstrand, Fred, 104

亨特,大卫,37岁

Hunter, David, 37

Hurt,R. Douglas,88–89,99,148 n. 5

Hurt, R. Douglas, 88–89, 99, 148 n. 5

工业革命,88

Industrial Revolution, 88

互联网现代史资料集,第64页

Internet Modern History Sourcebook, 64

Jacobson,Matthew Frye,147 页脚注 4

Jacobson, Matthew Frye, 147 n. 4

詹姆斯一世,国王,4

James I, King, 4

詹姆斯敦殖民地。参见波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯救援队

Jamestown colony. See Pocahantas/John Smith rescue unit

杰斐逊,托马斯,37

Jefferson, Thomas, 37

吉姆·克劳法,第107-109页,第111页

Jim Crow laws, 107–109, 111

Johnson, DW, 147 n. 32

Johnson, D. W., 147 n. 32

约翰逊,日内瓦,108

Johnson, Geneva, 108

约翰逊,林登·B.,66,128-129

Johnson, Lyndon B., 66, 128–129

Johnson,RT,147 n. 32

Johnson, R. T., 147 n. 32

Jordan, Winthrop D., 148 n. 13

Jordan, Winthrop D., 148 n. 13

考夫曼,克里斯托弗·J.,147页脚注7

Kauffman, Christopher J., 147 n. 7

Kaye,F.,148 页脚注 13

Kaye, F., 148 n. 13

肯尼迪,约翰·F.

Kennedy, John F.

天主教,53,58

Catholicism of, 53, 58

古巴导弹危机,124-142页

Cuban Missile Crisis, 124–142

肯尼迪,罗伯特·F.,第125-129页,第131页,第132页,第133-134页,第136页,第139页,第150页脚注5-6

Kennedy, Robert F., 125–129, 131, 132, 133–134, 136, 139, 150 n. 5–6

肯尼迪总统图书馆和博物馆,142

Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, 142

凯瑟琳·凯彻姆,149页脚注17

Ketcham, Katherine, 149 n. 17

赫鲁晓夫,尼基塔,124–129, 135, 150 n。 7

Khrushchev, Nikita, 124–129, 135, 150 n. 7

赫鲁晓夫,谢尔盖 N.,150 n。 21

Khrushchev, Sergei N., 150 n. 21

赫鲁晓夫回忆录(赫鲁晓夫),125,135

Khrushchev Remembers (Khrushchev), 125, 135

金,马丁·路德·金,小,49,109,118

King, Martin Luther, Jr., 49, 109, 118

克洛德阿尔瓦,J.豪尔赫,149 n。 11

Klor de Alva, J. Jorge, 149 n. 11

“一无所知”运动,50、53、58

Know-Nothing movement, 50, 53, 58

Kocoom,4

Kocoom, 4

科尔,赫伯特,112,116

Kohl, Herbert, 112, 116

克里格,拉里·S.,149页脚注11

Krieger, Larry S., 149 n. 11

兰格,多萝西娅,84岁

Lange, Dorothea, 84

拉尔森,加里,54岁

Larson, Gary, 54

拉思罗普夫人,WC,65–71,76–82,148 n. 18

Lathrop, Mrs. W. C., 65–71, 76–82, 148 n. 18

勒博,理查德·内德,135,150 脚注 12

Lebow, Richard Ned, 135, 150 n. 12

莱克,詹姆斯·N.,37, 147 n。 29

Leiker, James N., 37, 147 n. 29

Lemay,JA Leo,2, 4, 10, 145 n。 9

Lemay, J. A. Leo, 2, 4, 10, 145 n. 9

刘易斯,保罗,2,11,145 n. 8

Lewis, Paul, 2, 11, 145 n. 8

莱克星顿格林单元,17-31

Lexington Green unit, 17–31

引言和背景,17-20

introduction and background, 17–20

概述,xi

overview, xi

教学原因,20-21

reasons for teaching, 20–21

情景 21–22

scenarios, 21–22

资源和工具,23-30

sources and tools, 23–30

建议资源,31

suggested resources, 31

材料使用情况,21-22

use of materials, 21–22

列克星顿历史学会,31

Lexington Historical Society, 31

《解放者报》(报纸),第33、35页

Liberator, The (newspaper), 33, 35

美国国会图书馆,第31、48、64、83、104、123、149页脚注20

Library of Congress, 31, 48, 64, 83, 104, 123, 149 n. 20

林肯,亚伯拉罕,ix,x,32-48,146 n。 1, 146 n. 1, 146 5, 147 n. 5, 147 28

Lincoln, Abraham, ix, x, 32–48, 146 n. 1, 146 n. 5, 147 n. 28

《林肯的时代背景》单元,第32-48页

Lincoln in Context unit, 32–48

引言和背景,32-37页

introduction and background, 32–37

概述,xi

overview, xi

教学原因,37-38

reasons for teaching, 37–38

情景,38–39

scenarios, 38–39

资源和工具,33–37,40–48

sources and tools, 33–37, 40–48

建议资源,48

suggested resources, 48

材料使用情况,38–39

use of materials, 38–39

林肯学院,48

Lincoln Institute, 48

林肯无人知晓,(当前),33

Lincoln Nobody Knows, The (Current), 33

林达曼,达娜,141

Lindaman, Dana, 141

沃尔特·李普曼,128

Lippmann, Walter, 128

利斯特,杰里米,22岁,27岁

Lister, Jeremy, 22, 27

洛温,詹姆斯·W.,146页脚注13

Loewen, James W., 146 n. 13

洛夫图斯,伊丽莎白,149页注17

Loftus, Elizabeth, 149 n. 17

Long, Stephen, 148 n. 3

Long, Stephen, 148 n. 3

洛坦,雷切尔,十二

Lotan, Rachel, xii

詹姆斯敦的爱与恨(普莱斯),1

Love and Hate in Jamestown (Price), 1

洛文塔尔,戴维,146页脚注20

Lowenthal, David, 146 n. 20

Lytle,Mark H.,148 n. 1

Lytle, Mark H., 148 n. 1

马林,詹姆斯·C.,149页脚注25

Malin, James C., 149 n. 25

Martin,Daisy,149页脚注28,150页脚注10

Martin, Daisy, 149 n. 28, 150 n. 10

马萨诸塞州历史学会,18,31

Massachusetts Historical Society, 18, 31

麦克迪恩,哈里·C.,87,148 n. 13

McDean, Harry C., 87, 148 n. 13

麦克唐纳,杰西·F.,52岁

McDonald, Jesse F., 52

麦基,弗兰克,137

McGee, Frank, 137

麦吉夫尼,父亲,56岁

McGivney, Father, 56

麦克弗森,詹姆斯,149页脚注12

McPherson, James, 149 n. 12

迈尔,《八月》,150页,注30

Meier, August, 150 n. 30

明茨,斯蒂芬,21岁,64岁

Mintz, Stephen, 21, 64

民兵。参见列克星顿绿地部队

Minutemen. See Lexington Green unit

Mixon, DW, 106, 113, 114

Mixon, D. W., 106, 113, 114

Monte-Sano,Chauncey,149 n. 4,149 n. 28,150 n. 10

Monte-Sano, Chauncey, 149 n. 4, 149 n. 28, 150 n. 10

蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动。参见罗莎·帕克斯/蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动单元

Montgomery Bus Boycott. See Rosa Parks/Montgomery Bus Boycott unit

蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动(罗宾逊),117

Montgomery Bus Boycott, The (Robinson), 117

蒙哥马利市法典,第112、120、149条脚注22

Montgomery City Code, 112, 120, 149 n. 22

蒙哥马利改进协会(MIA),108-109,118

Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), 108–109, 118

Morris, Alden D., 105, 149 n. 8

Morris, Alden D., 105, 149 n. 8

莫尔斯,塞缪尔·FB,51

Morse, Samuel F. B., 51

摩西十二世

Moses, xii

霍利奥克山学院,142

Mt. Holyoke College, 142

穆伦,詹姆斯·T.,56岁

Mullen, James T., 56

穆利肯,纳撒尼尔,18–20,25,30,146 n. 6

Mulliken, Nathaniel, 18–20, 25, 30, 146 n. 6

Murdock, Harold, 18, 146 n. 3–4

Murdock, Harold, 18, 146 n. 3–4

纳斯特,托马斯,54,59,62-64

Nast, Thomas, 54, 59, 62–64

Nathan, James A., 150 n. 23

Nathan, James A., 150 n. 23

国家档案馆,48

National Archives, 48

全国教育进步评估(NAEP) ix

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), ix

全国有色人种协进会(NAACP),106

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 106

全国学校历史中心,104

National Center for History in the Schools, 104

美国国家人文基金会,31,83

National Endowment for the Humanities, 31, 83

全国州长协会,145 页脚注 3-4

National Governors’ Association, 145 n. 3–4

国家历史教育信息中心,141

National History Education Clearinghouse, 141

国家公园管理局,16,31

National Park Service, 16, 31

美国国家公共广播电台,107

National Public Radio, 107

美国国家科学基金会(NSF),第十二届

National Science Foundation (NSF), xii

国家安全档案馆,142

National Security Archive, 142

国家人文信托基金会,31

National Trust for the Humanities, 31

国家妇女历史博物馆,83

National Women’s History Museum, 83

美洲原住民,波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯救援队,1-16

Native Americans, Pocahantas/John Smith rescue unit, 1–16

纳特·特纳起义,33

Nat Turner’s Rebellion, 33

Neary,Lynn,150 n. 27

Neary, Lynn, 150 n. 27

新政,66,87

New Deal, 66, 87

新政网络,104

New Deal Network, 104

尼克松,理查德·M.,127、129、137

Nixon, Richard M., 127, 129, 137

诺伊斯,赫尔蒙·N.,150页脚注2

Noyes, Hermon N., 150 n. 2

奈伊,戴维,66,72,147 n. 2

Nye, David, 66, 72, 147 n. 2

奥康纳,托马斯·H.,150页脚注8

O’Connor, Thomas H., 150 n. 8

奥唐纳,肯尼,128

O’Donnell, Kenny, 128

奥佩坎卡诺夫,4

Opechancanough, 4

奥沙利文,约翰,2-3

O’Sullivan, John, 2–3

帕鲁丹,菲利普·肖,35, 147 n。 19, 147 n. 19, 147 24

Paludan, Phillip Shaw, 35, 147 n. 19, 147 n. 24

帕克,约翰,17岁,25岁

Parker, John, 17, 25

Parks, Rosa, 105–123, 149 n. 1, 149 n. 6, 149 n. 8, 149 n. 18–19

Parks, Rosa, 105–123, 149 n. 1, 149 n. 6, 149 n. 8, 149 n. 18–19

帕托瓦梅克,4

Patowameck, 4

美国人民的历史,A(津恩),49

People’s History of the United States, A (Zinn), 49

珀西,乔治,145 n. 11

Percy, George, 145 n. 11

Phinney,Elias,17–18,146 n. 1

Phinney, Elias, 17–18, 146 n. 1

皮特凯恩,约翰,19、26、27、31

Pitcairn, John, 19, 26, 27, 31

平原印第安战争,88

Plains Indian Wars, 88

效忠誓词,52

Pledge of Allegiance, 52

普莱西诉弗格森案,107

Plessy v. Ferguson, 107

《波卡洪塔斯与波瓦坦困境》(汤森德著),1

Pocahantas and the Powhatan Dilemma (Townsend), 1

宝嘉康蒂(迪士尼电影),1、5、6

Pocahantas (Disney film), 1, 5, 6

波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯救援队,第九卷,第1-16页

Pocahantas/John Smith rescue unit, ix, 1–16

引言和背景,1-4

introduction and background, 1–4

概述,xi

overview, xi

教学理由,4-5

reasons for teaching, 4–5

情景 5–6

scenarios, 5–6

资源和工具,7-15

sources and tools, 7–15

建议资源,16

suggested resources, 16

事件时间线,12

timeline of events, 12

材料使用,5-6

use of materials, 5–6

民粹主义,50

Populism, 50

波瓦坦, 2–4, 8, 9, 145 n. 6

Powhatan, 2–4, 8, 9, 145 n. 6

Price, David A., 1, 145 n. 1

Price, David A., 1, 145 n. 1

通过历史和科学促进论证(PATHS),第十二卷

Promoting Argumentation Through History and Science (PATHS), xii

普罗瑟,加布里埃尔,第九卷,第145页脚注2

Prosser, Gabriel, ix, 145 n. 2

公共广播系统(PBS),16、104、123

Public Broadcasting System (PBS), 16, 104, 123

Quimby,Jan MG,146 n. 1

Quimby, Jan M. G., 146 n. 1

拉维奇,黛安,145页脚注8,147页脚注9

Ravitch, Diane, 145 n. 8, 147 n. 9

雷斯曼,艾比,第十二卷,第145页脚注7

Reisman, Abby, xii, 145 n. 7

里维尔,保罗,21岁,105岁

Revere, Paul, 21, 105

美国独立战争。参见列克星顿绿地部队

Revolutionary War. See Lexington Green unit

Ripley,《埃兹拉》,17–18,146 n. 2

Ripley, Ezra, 17–18, 146 n. 2

Robinson, Jo Ann Gibson, 108–112, 117, 150 n. 31

Robinson, Jo Ann Gibson, 108–112, 117, 150 n. 31

罗宾逊,约翰·贝尔,36,38,44,117

Robinson, John Bell, 36, 38, 44, 117

罗比,帕梅拉,148 页脚注 28

Roby, Pamela, 148 n. 28

Rogers,Sidney,107,149 n. 6

Rogers, Sidney, 107, 149 n. 6

罗尔夫,约翰,4

Rolfe, John, 4

罗尔夫,托马斯,4

Rolfe, Thomas, 4

罗斯福,富兰克林·德拉诺,52、85-87、96、97

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 52, 85–87, 96, 97

罗莎·帕克斯/蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动单元,105-123

Rosa Parks/Montgomery Bus Boycott unit, 105–123

引言和背景,105-111页

introduction and background, 105–111

概述,xi

overview, xi

教学理由,111

reasons for teaching, 111

情景,111–112

scenarios, 111–112

资料和工具,113–122

sources and tools, 113–122

建议资源,123

suggested resources, 123

材料使用情况,111-112

use of materials, 111–112

罗莎·帕克斯博物馆,123

Rosa Parks Museum, 123

Rountree, Helen C., 3, 4, 146 n. 13, 146 n. 19

Rountree, Helen C., 3, 4, 146 n. 13, 146 n. 19

鲁德威克,埃利奥特,150页脚注30

Rudwick, Elliot, 150 n. 30

农村电气化。参见爱迪生与技术部门

Rural electrification. See Edison & Technology unit

农村电气化管理局(REA),66、73、86

Rural Electrification Administration (REA), 66, 73, 86

Rusk,Dean,124–127,132–134,136

Rusk, Dean, 124–127, 132–134, 136

Russell,CJ,72

Russell, C. J., 72

罗素,菲利普,18–20,25

Russell, Philip, 18–20, 25

销售,柯克帕特里克,49,147 n. 1

Sale, Kirkpatrick, 49, 147 n. 1

亨利·桑德姆,17, 18, 21, 23

Sandham, Henry, 17, 18, 21, 23

圣地亚哥州立大学,104

San Diego State University, 104

索特尔,克莱门特,146页注6

Sawtell, Clement, 146 n. 6

Schlereth, Thomas J., 51, 147 n. 8

Schlereth, Thomas J., 51, 147 n. 8

杰克·施耐德,十二,49–64、124–142、147 n。 2

Schneider, Jack, xii, 49–64, 124–142, 147 n. 2

斯科特,德雷德,33岁

Scott, Dred, 33

大卫·塞尔夫,150页脚注17

Self, David, 150 n. 17

她不会动摇(科尔),112,116

She Would Not Be Moved (Kohl), 112, 116

Shipp,ER,150 n. 32

Shipp, E. R., 150 n. 32

塞拉利昂殖民化,36,43

Sierra Leone colonization, 36, 43

史密斯,约翰,第九卷,第1-16页,第145页脚注4

Smith, John, ix, 1–16, 145 n. 4

斯诺,凯瑟琳·E.,145页脚注5

Snow, Catherine E., 145 n. 5

所罗门,芭芭拉·米勒,67,148 n. 29

Solomon, Barbara Miller, 67, 148 n. 29

《再见,很高兴认识你》(格思里歌曲),85,90

“So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh” (Guthrie song), 85, 90

索伦森,西奥多,127、128、136

Sorenson, Theodore, 127, 128, 136

前苏联。参见古巴导弹危机单元

Soviet Union, former. See Cuban Missile Crisis unit

速度,约书亚,35

Speed, Joshua, 35

斯皮德,玛丽,35岁,42岁

Speed, Mary, 35, 42

斯坦福历史教育小组,第十二卷,第123页

Stanford History Education Group, xii, 123

斯坦福大学教育学院,141

Stanford School of Education, 141

斯坦福教师教育项目(STEP),第十二届

Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP), xii

斯坦因,珍妮丝·格罗斯,135,150 脚注 12

Stein, Janice Gross, 135, 150 n. 12

斯坦贝克,约翰,84、89-90、91、148 页脚注 1

Steinbeck, John, 84, 89–90, 91, 148 n. 1

斯坦伯格,塞缪尔,27,146 n. 8

Steinberg, Samuel, 27, 146 n. 8

史蒂文斯,里德,第十二卷,第145页脚注6

Stevens, Reed, xii, 145 n. 6

史蒂文森,珍妮特,105

Stevenson, Janet, 105

斯泰尔斯,《埃兹拉》,19–22、26、146 页脚注 9

Stiles, Ezra, 19–22, 26, 146 n. 9

斯托,哈里特·比彻,51岁

Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 51

斯特雷奇,威廉,3

Strachey, William, 3

斯特拉瑟,苏珊,66–68,148 n. 6,148 n. 18

Strasser, Susan, 66–68, 148 n. 6, 148 n. 18

Svobida,Lawrence,86–87,91,95

Svobida, Lawrence, 86–87, 91, 95

塔姆斯,乔治,150 n. 1

Tames, George, 150 n. 1

塔尼,罗杰·B.,37岁

Taney, Roger B., 37

新时代教师项目,第十二届

Teachers for a New Era Project, xii

《十三天》(R. Kennedy),125、127-128、131、136

Thirteen Days (R. Kennedy), 125, 127–128, 131, 136

第十三修正案,36

Thirteenth Amendment, 36

蒂尔顿,罗伯特·S.,4,145–146 页脚注 12

Tilton, Robert S., 4, 145–146 n. 12

图特洛 (Arthur B.),18, 146 n. 5

Tourtellot, Arthur B., 18, 146 n. 5

Townsend,Camilla,1,3,4,145 n. 3

Townsend, Camilla, 1, 3, 4, 145 n. 3

特洛伊大学,123

Troy University, 123

塔格韦尔,雷克斯福德,86

Tugwell, Rexford, 86

Turner, Alvin O., 94, 148 n. 3

Turner, Alvin O., 94, 148 n. 3

Turner, E. Randolph, 3, 146 n. 15

Turner, E. Randolph, 3, 146 n. 15

特纳,弗雷德里克·杰克逊,50

Turner, Frederick Jackson, 50

特威德,威廉“老板”,54,63

Tweed, William “Boss,” 54, 63

联合国防治荒漠化公约,90

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 90

美国农业部(USDA),66

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 66

美国商务部气象局,149 n. 5

U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau, 149 n. 5

美国邮政服务,17,23

U.S. Postal Service, 17, 23

马里兰大学,48

University of Maryland, 48

弗吉尼亚大学,16、66、69、76

University of Virginia, 16, 66, 69, 76

吴丹,124

U Thant, 124

范德帕斯,西蒙,4

Van de Passe, Simon, 4

范德普滕,伊丽莎白,十二

VanderPutten, Elizabeth, xii

Verizon基金会,31

Verizon Foundation, 31

越南战争,124

Vietnam War, 124

弗吉尼亚理工大学,16

Virginia Tech, 16

Voss, JF, 147 n. 31

Voss, J. F., 147 n. 31

韦德,路易丝·C.,150页脚注4

Wade, Louise C., 150 n. 4

韦德,理查德·C.,150页脚注4

Wade, Richard C., 150 n. 4

Wahunsunacock,145 n. 6

Wahunsunacock, 145 n. 6

华莱士,亨利·A.,85、86、93、94

Wallace, Henry A., 85, 86, 93, 94

华特迪士尼公司,1、2、5、6

Walt Disney Company, 1, 2, 5, 6

沃德,JH,85,92

Ward, J. H., 85, 92

沃德,凯尔,14​​1

Ward, Kyle, 141

Warren, W., 149 页脚注 28,150 页脚注 10

Warren, W., 149 n. 28, 150 n. 10

韦弗,詹姆斯·B.,51岁

Weaver, James B., 51

韦尔奇,A.,136

Welch, A., 136

韦尔奇,戴维·A.,150 页脚注 19

Welch, David A., 150 n. 19

怀特,维奥拉,108

White, Viola, 108

Wilder, Howard B., 150 n. 4

Wilder, Howard B., 150 n. 4

威尔斯,加里,34,147 n. 16

Wills, Garry, 34, 147 n. 16

威尔逊,道格拉斯·L.,33,146 n. 6

Wilson, Douglas L., 33, 146 n. 6

威尔逊,路易斯,149页脚注11

Wilson, Louis, 149 n. 11

Wineburg, Samuel S., 145 n. 6, 146 n. 10–11, 147 n. 2, 147 n. 30–31, 149 n. 3–4, 149 n. 28, 150 n. 10

Wineburg, Samuel S., 145 n. 6, 146 n. 10–11, 147 n. 2, 147 n. 30–31, 149 n. 3–4, 149 n. 28, 150 n. 10

温菲尔德,爱德华·玛丽亚,145 n. 7

Wingfield, Edward Maria, 145 n. 7

温菲尔德,凯蒂,108

Wingfield, Katie, 108

沃洛赫,南希,149页脚注11

Woloch, Nancy, 149 n. 11

《妇女家庭伴侣》,70

Woman’s Home Companion, 70

妇女政治委员会(WPC),108

Women’s Political Council (WPC), 108

女性的工作。参见爱迪生与技术部门

Womens’ work. See Edison & Technology unit

伍德维尔,路易丝,146 n. 16

Woodville, Louise, 146 n. 16

伍斯特妇女历史项目,83

Worcester Women’s History Project, 83

沃斯特,唐纳德,84、87-89、98、104、148 页脚注 2

Worster, Donald, 84, 87–89, 98, 104, 148 n. 2

沃西,埃斯皮,108

Worthy, Espie, 108

Wunder, JR, 148 n. 13

Wunder, J. R., 148 n. 13

耶鲁大学,142

Yale University, 142

Zelikow,Philip,150 n. 19

Zelikow, Philip, 150 n. 19

Zinn,Howard,49,147 n. 1

Zinn, Howard, 49, 147 n. 1

作者简介

About the Authors

萨姆·温伯格是斯坦福大学玛格丽特·杰克斯教育学教授,同时也是历史学教授(兼任)。他领导着斯坦福历史教育小组,该小组致力于研究和开发,旨在改进历史教学(http://sheg.stanford.edu)。他的跨学科研究融合了历史学、认知科学和教育学三大领域,其研究成果曾被C-SPAN、NPR和WBUR-Boston等媒体以及包括《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》《今日美国》在内的多家全国性报纸报道。温伯格先后就读于布朗大学和加州大学伯克利分校,在斯坦福大学获得教育心理学博士学位之前,他曾在高中和初中任教。2002年,他的著作《历史思维及其他非自然行为:规划历史教学的未来》荣获美国大学协会颁发的弗雷德里克·W·内斯奖,该奖项旨在表彰对“改进博雅教育和理解博雅艺术”做出最重要贡献的著作。

Sam Wineburg is the Margaret Jacks Professor of Education and (by courtesy) of History at Stanford University. Wineburg directs the Stanford History Education Group, a research and development effort aimed at improving history instruction (http://sheg.stanford.edu). His interdisciplinary scholarship sits at the crossroads of three fields: history, cognitive science, and education, and has been featured on C-SPAN, NPR, and WBUR-Boston, as well as in newspapers across the nation, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA TODAY. Educated at Brown and Berkeley, he taught at the high school and middle school levels before completing his Ph.D. at Stanford in Psychological Studies in Education. In 2002 his book, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past, won the Frederic W. Ness Award from the Association of American Colleges and Universities for work that makes the most important contribution to the “improvement of Liberal Education and understanding the Liberal Arts.”

黛西·马丁是国家历史教育信息中心( teachinghistory.org )的历史教育主任,该中心是由乔治·梅森大学历史与新媒体中心发起的一个联邦政府资助项目。她曾是一名高中历史和公民课教师,目前在加州大学圣克鲁兹分校和斯坦福大学为职前教师授课,并与资深教师在各种场合合作,包括由“美国历史教学”资助项目、国家公园管理局和国家人文基金会资助的研讨会。马丁拥有密歇根大学、加州大学伯克利分校和斯坦福大学的学位,作为斯坦福历史教育小组的创始成员,她曾担任该小组的联合主任两年。她目前的研究项目包括与教师合作创建历史表现性评估,以及调查各州的历史/社会研究标准和评估体系。

Daisy Martin is the Director of History Education for the National History Education Clearinghouse (teachinghistory.org), a federally funded project produced by the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. A former high school history and civics teacher, she teaches preservice teachers at the University of California at Santa Cruz and Stanford University and works with veteran teachers in a variety of venues, including workshops funded by the Teaching American History grant program, the National Parks Service, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Martin holds degrees from the University of Michigan, UC Berkeley, and Stanford University, and as a founding member of the Stanford History Education Group she served as its co-director for 2 years. Her current projects include working with teachers to create history performance assessments and investigating states’ history/social studies standards and assessment systems.

昌西·蒙特-萨诺是密歇根大学教育研究系的副教授。她曾任高中教师,并获得美国国家教师资格认证。目前,她致力于为新教师提供历史课堂教学培训,并通过各种专业发展项目与当地学区的资深历史教师合作。她曾获得美国教育科学研究所和斯宾塞基金会的研究资助,以及美国国家社会研究理事会和美国教育研究协会的研究奖项。在斯坦福大学攻读研究生期间,她与温伯格和马丁共同创立了斯坦福历史教育小组。她目前的研究重点是理解和培养学生基于证据的历史写作能力。她的学术论文发表于《美国教育研究杂志》《社会教育理论与研究》、《学习科学杂志》、《课程探究》《教师教育杂志》等期刊

Chauncey Monte-Sano is Associate Professor of Educational Studies at the University of Michigan. A former high school teacher and National Board Certified teacher, she currently prepares novice teachers for the history classroom and works with veteran history teachers in local school districts through a variety of professional development programs. She has won research grants from the Institute of Education Sciences and the Spencer Foundation and research awards from the National Council for the Social Studies and the American Educational Research Association. As a graduate student at Stanford, she was a founding member of the Stanford History Education Group with Wineburg and Martin. Her current research focuses on understanding and developing students’ evidence-based historical writing. Her scholarship has appeared in the American Educational Research Journal, Theory and Research in Social Education, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Curriculum Inquiry, and the Journal of Teacher Education.